fsnsrai  \«r  ■*****,>■ 


L  B  UC-NRLF 


58^ 


J 


THE  FORM  BOARD  TEST 


BY 
REUEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 


A  thesis  presented  to  the  Faculty  of  the  Graduate  School  of  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania  in  partial  fulfilment  of  the  requirements 
for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy. 


191. 


; 


THE  FORM  BOARD  TEST 


BY 
REUEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 


A  thesis  presented  to  the  Faculty  of  the  Graduate  School  of  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania  in  partial  fulfilment  of  the  requirements 
for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy. 


1913 


L.BII3I 

S5 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

Descriptive  and  Historical  Sketch I 

Preliminary  Studies    5 

Application  to  Retarded  and  Defective  Children 13 

Study  of  the  Time  and  Error  Features 23 

Standardization  of  the  Form  Board  Test 44 

Appendix    53 


28899 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/formboardtestOOsylvrich 


DESCRIPTIVE  AND  HISTORICAL  SKETCH 

The  form  board  has  been  used  for  several  years,  and  clinical 
psychologists  continue  to  regard  it  as  one  of  their  best  general 
tests.  It  appeals  to  the  child's  interest,  affording  him  a  short  and 
fascinating  task  which  calls  for  his  best  effort,  and  it  helps  to 
free  him  from  the  fear  and  self-consciousness  which  often  inter- 
fere seriously  in  a  mental  examination.  At  the  same  time  the 
test  gives  the  examiner  a  good  general  view  of  the  child's  men- 
tality and  it  usually  indicates  more  or  less  clearly  the  nature  of 
his  defects. 


The  Form  Board. — The  forms  are  designated  by  numbers  as  follows: 
i.  Semi-circle.  2.  Triangle.  3.  Cross.  4.  Elongated  hexagon.  5.  Oblong. 
6.  Circle.    7.  Square.    8.  Flattened  oval.    9.  Star.     o.  Lozenge. 


The  form  board  is  shown  in  the  above  figure.  The  ten  geo- 
metrical figures,  as  nearly  uniform  in  size  as  their  variety  of  form 
will  allow,  are  cut  through  an  oak  board  20  x  14  x  ^  inches. 
This  oak  board  is  glued  to  a  soft  wood  board  of  the  same  length 
and  breadth,  y%  inches  thick.  The  result  is  a  thick  board  of 
moderate  weight  with  a  hard  oak  surface  in  which  the  ten  forms 
appear  as  shallow  holes  or  recesses.     About  the  edge  is  placed 


■  •       ■      4       (« 

2  REUEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 

an  oak  strip,  i%  x  %  inches,  fitting  flush  with  the  soft  wood 
back  and  forming  a  %  incn  raised  edge  about  the  oak  surface. 
Corresponding  to  the  ten  recesses  are  ten  walnut  blocks,  %  inch 
in  thickness,  each  of  which  fits  loosely  into  its  corresponding 
recess.  The  thickness  being  more  than  twice  the  depth  of  the 
recesses  the  blocks  can  easily  be  grasped  and  removed.  The  board 
and  the  blocks  are  finished  in  their  natural  oak  and  walnut  colors 
and  the  recesses  are  painted  black.  The  whole  is  carefully  fin- 
ished in  order  to  give  it  an  attractive  appearance,' — an  important 
feature  in  a  mental  testing  device.  This  description  applies  to 
what  may  be  called  the  standard  form  board, — the  type  now  in 
most  general  use. 

History  of  the  Form  Board 

The  first  form  boards  were  contrived  for  training  purposes. 
Itard  in  his  efforts  to  train  the  Wild  Boy  of  Aveyron  used  as  one 
of  his  devices  a  board  two  feet  square  upon  which  were  pasted 
three  pieces  of  brightly  colored  paper, — a  red  circle,  a  blue  tri- 
angle, and  a  black  square.  Pieces  of  card  board  of  the  same 
forms  and  colors  were  to  be  matched  with  these  by  the  boy. 
Other  boards  with  various  forms  and  colors  were  also  used.1 

Seguin  constructed  a  number  of  form  boards.  Copies  of 
some  of  them  are  still  used  at  the  Seguin  School.  One  consists 
of  an  inch  board  about  one  foot  square  into  the  surface  of 
which  are  cut  four  circular  recesses  a  half  inch  deep  and  varying 
between  an  inch  and  three  inches  in  diameter.  Corresponding 
to  these  are  four  circular  blocks  one  inch  thick.  Board  and 
blocks  are  soft  wood  and  are  not  stained  or  painted.  Another 
Seguin  board  is  of  hard  wood,  is  considerably  larger  than  the 
kind  just  described  and  has  a  dozen  variously  shaped  symmetri- 
cal forms.  In  a  third  kind  the  blocks  are  of  light  colored  wood 
on  one  side  and  of  dark  colored  wood  on  the  other.  The  only 
form  boards  that  Seguin  himself  made  and  used  are  in  use  at  the 
Massachusetts  Institution  for  the  Feeble-Minded  at  Waverly. 
They  are  about  two  feet  long  and  less  than  half  as  wide.     The 

1Des  Premiers  Developments  du  Jeune  Sauvage  de  L' Aveyron,  p.  41. 


DESCRIPTIVE  AND  HISTORICAL  SKETCH  3 

six  recesses  in  each  are  arranged  in  a  line.  Boards  and  blocks  are 
all  of  the  same  wood  and  color.  Seguin  conceived  of  a  series  of 
form  boards  graded  as  to  difficulty  and  he  had  such  a  series 
planned  and  partly  constructed. 

Bourneville  recommended  light  form  boards  or  trays2  very  like 
those  used  by  Dr.  Maria  Montessori.  Montessori  is  the  first  to 
apply  form  board  devices  to  the  training  of  normal  children.3 

The  form  board  was  first  used  as  a  testing  device  by  Dr. 
Naomi  Norsworthy.  In  her  study  of  mental  defectives4  she 
used  as  one  of  the  tests  a  form  board  that  had  been  constructed 
for  practice  curve  studies  by  Dr.  Joseph  Hershey  Bair.5  This 
board  was  smaller  than  the  standard  form  board  already  de- 
scribed, its  blocks  were  provided  with  handles,  and  instead  of  the 
star  and  the  cross  it  had  a  hexagon  and  an  octagon. 

Dr.  Henry  H.  Goddard  increased  the  board  to  its  present  size, 
substituted  the  star  and  the  cross,  arranged  the  forms  more 
compactly,  reduced  them  to  such  sizes  and  proportions  that  no 
block  could  be  set  into  a  recess  not  its  own,  and  dispensed  with 
the   handles. 

Professor  Edwin  B.  Twitmyer  adopted  Goddard's  arrangement 
and  size  of  forms,  but  reversed  their  order,  made  the  recesses  shal- 
lower, used  hard  wood,  contrasted  the  colors  of  board,  blocks, 
and  recesses,  added  the  raised  strip  to  the  edge,  and  gave  the 
whole  a  more  attractive  appearance.  This  is  the  kind  of  form 
board  that  was  used  in  the  present  investigation.6 

Methods  of  Giving  the  Test 
Dr.  Clara  H.  Town  regards  form  perception  as  the  primary 
feature  of  the  test  and  so  uses  the  number  of  errors1  as  the  index 

"Assistance  des  Enfants  Idiots  et  Degeneres,  p.  233.  Recherches  Cliniques 
et  Therapeutuques,  vol.  XXIV,  p.  xxv. 

"The  Montessori  Method   (Tr.  by  Anne  George),  pp.  195  ff. 

*  The  Psychology  of  Mentally  Deficient  Children,  pp.  25,  26. 

"The  Practice  Curve,  p.  34. 

•Robert  S.  Woodworth  (Science,  n.s.  XXXI  -.171),  and  William  Healy  and 
Grace  M.  Fernald  (Tests  for  Practical  Mental  Classification) ,  have  con- 
structed and  used  other  good  form  boards. 

1  By  an  error  is  meant  an  attempt  to  fit  a  block  into  a  recess  not  its  own. 


4  REVEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 

of  a  child's  form  board  ability.  She  takes  a  record  of  the  num- 
ber of  errors  made  in  each  trial8  until  the  trial  in  which  all  of 
the  blocks  are  replaced  without  error,  or  until  she  is  convinced 
that  the  child  cannot  replace  them.  In  addition  she  notes  the 
rapidity  of  the  work  and  certain  other  features,  but  her  procedure 
is  planned  to  give  greatest  prominence  to  errors. 

Goddard  considers  the  amount  of  time  required  by  the  child 
for  replacing  the  blocks  as  of  prime  importance.  He  gives  three 
trials,  and  takes  the  time  of  the  shortest  of  the  three  as  the  child's 
form  board  index.  He  also  takes  a  record  of  the  handling  of 
the  blocks  and  attaches  some  importance  to  the  number  of 
errors.9 

Professor  Lightner  Witmer  is  most  interested  in  the  child's 
first  attempts  at  the  task.  His  procedure  varies  for  different 
children,  but  he  usually  places  the  board  before  the  child  with 
no  explanation  except  a  mere  statement  as,  "Let  us  see  whether 
you  can  do  this",  or  "Put  the  blocks  in".  Then  he  watches 
closely  to  catch  the  child's  first  reactions  and  to  see  how  he  at- 
tacks this  new  kind  of  problem.  Successive  trials  are  usually 
given  and  the  method  varied,  the  procedure  depending  on  the 
way  that  the  child  reacts  and  the  particular  features  of  his  men- 
tality on  which  the  examiner  desires  more  light.  If  the  child 
takes  the  usual  interest  in  the  task,  he  is  often  allowed  to  con- 
tinue it  while  details  quite  apart  from  the  general  purpose  of  the 
test  are  studied.  For  instance  after  the  blocks  are  in  place  the 
examiner  may  say  in  a  low  tone,  "Now  take  them  out",  thus 
getting  at  the  child's  word-hearing  ability.  The  record  of  the 
test  as  kept  by  Witmer  usually  consists  of  observations  dictated 
while  the  test  is  being  given. 

These  three  methods  are  distinguished  because  they  emphasize 
three  different  features  of  the  form  board  test ;  errors,  time,  and 
reaction  to  a  new  task.  In  each  some  attention  is  given  to  the 
features  emphasized  in  the  others,  so  they  are  not  entirely  distinct. 
Other  methods  are  modifications  of  these  three. 

8  By  a  trial  is  meant  the  taking  of  all  of  the  blocks  from  a  pile  and  putting 
them  into  their  recesses. 

9  Training  School,  IX,  49-52. 


II 

PRELIMINARY  STUDIES 

The  purpose  of  the  investigation  reported  in  this  monograph 
was  to  analyze  certain  features  of  the  form  board  test  psycho- 
logically, to  determine  upon  the  best  method  of  applying  it,  and 
to  work  out  a  standard  interpretation  of  its  results.  A  long 
series  of  preliminary  studies  was  necessary.  Following  a  year's 
observation  of  the  test  in  the  Psychological  Clinic  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania  the  investigator  applied  it  to  some  four 
hundred  children  and  several  dozen  adults,  using  various  modi- 
fications of  the  three  methods  mentioned  in  the  preceding  section. 
Interviews  with  Goddard,  Town,  Woodworth,  Wallin,  Mrs.  Se- 
guin,  and  others  who  have  used  the  test  extensively,  and  con- 
ferences with  the  professors  of  psychology  under  whose  direction 
the  main  investigation  was  to  be  carried  on  made  possible  a  full 
and  satisfactory  interpretation  of  the  results.  These  preliminary 
studies,  besides  giving  a  general  orientation  and  opening  up  the 
various  lines  which  would  have  to  be  followed  out,  yielded  con- 
clusions on  three  points  which  had  to  be  decided  tentatively 
before  the  investigation  could  proceed. 

Position  of  Child,  Board,  and  Blocks 
The  first  of  these  conclusions  has  to  do  with  the  position  of 
the  child,  the  board,  and  the  blocks  at  the  beginning  of  a  trial. 
The  following  arrangement  was  worked  out.  It  was  used 
throughout  the  later  studies  and  proved  to  be  entirely  satis- 
factory. The  form  board  lies  horizontally  on  a  table,  its  lower 
edge1  even  with  the  edge  of  the  table  next  to  which  the  child 
stands.  The  table  must  be  low  enough  so  that  he  can  lean  well 
over  the  board  and  look  down  upon  the  center  of  it.  Children 
readily  adapt  themselves  to  height  within  a  reasonable  range,  so 
an  adjustable  table  is  not  necessary.  One  of  ordinary  height 
and  a  kindergarten  table  suffice,  most  children  under  nine  years 

*The  lower  edge  is  the  edge  next  to  the  star  recess. 


6  REUEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 

of  age  requiring  the  latter.  If  the  table  is  too  high,  the  child 
has  to  look  across  the  board  instead  of  down  upon  it  and  he 
cannot  see  the  forms  so  well; — an  important  point  that  is  often 
neglected,  many  examiners  having  the  board  entirely  too  high 
for  the  child.  The  blocks  should  be  placed  in  three  piles  on  the 
table,  next  to  the  edge  of  the  board  on  the  side  opposite  the  child, 
no  block  being  in  the  pile  nearest  its  own  recess.  If  the  child  is 
in  a  position  that  enables  him  to  look  down  upon  the  center 
of  the  board,  he  can  easily  reach  the  blocks  piled  in  that  way. 
Placing  them  at  the  right  of  the  board  as  is  often  done,  is  of  no 
advantage,  and  in  that  position  they  cannot  be  picked  up  with 
the  left  hand.  Placing  some  at  each  end  of  the  board  is  still 
worse  for  it  offers  the  most  possibilities  for  varying  the  diffi- 
culties of  handling  them. 

Kind  of  Form  Board  to  be  Used 

The  second  conclusion  referred  to  the  size  of  the  board  and 
the  order  of  arrangement  of  the  forms  upon  it.  Some  have 
suggested  that  the  blocks  of  the  standard  form  board  are  too 
large  for  small  children.  To  test  this  a  two-thirds  sized  model 
of  the  standard  board  was  constructed.  This  board  was  tried 
with  15  six  year  old  children,  28  five  year  olds,  18  four  year 
olds,  and  8  three  year  olds.  Each  child  had  two  trials  with  the 
standard  form  board  and  two  with  the  small  one,  half  of  each 
age  taking  them  in  the  order,  standard-small-standard-small  and 
the  other  half  taking  them  in  the  reverse  order.  The  time  re- 
quired for  placing  the  blocks  was  found  to  be  practically  the  same 
for  the  two  boards.  The  small  board  has  a  slight  advantage 
in  that  small  children  can  reach  the  extreme  corner  recesses  more 
easily,  but  this  is  perhaps  more  than  offset  by  the  finer  co-ordin- 
ation required  for  fitting  the  small  blocks  into  place.  The  small 
star  was  very  difficult  for  the  clumsy  fingered  little  folk.  The 
investigator  and  others  who  observed  the  work  agreed  that  the 
regular  sized  blocks  were  grasped  and  handled  with  more  cer- 
tainty than  the  small  ones.  It  was  not  thought  worth  while  to 
try  a  larger  board  for  it  was  evident  that  small  children  would 


PRELIMINARY  STUDIES  7 

have  difficulty  in  reaching  its  corner  recesses.  The  question  of 
re-arranging  the  forms  on  the  board  and  of  substituting  other 
forms  was  also  taken  up.  A  board  on  which  forms  could  be  set 
in  any  order  and  turned  at  any  angle  was  planned,  but  after 
experimenting  with  cardboard  models  it  was  decided  that  such 
a  study  would  involve  more  than  the  present  investigation  should 
undertake;  and  further  that  the  study  of  these  details  would 
probably  contribute  little  to  the  efficiency  of  the  device.  It  is 
obvious  that  the  value  of  a  test  like  this  depends  less  on  fine 
details  of  devices  than  on  the  method  of  using  them  and  the 
interpretation  of  their  results.  It  was  therefore  decided  to 
proceed  with  the  investigation  using  the  standard  form  board. 

Preliminary  Consideration  of  Method 

The  third  point  which  had  to  be  decided  tentatively  before 
the  investigation  could  proceed  was  as  to  which  of  the  three 
methods  should  be  the  basis  of  the  one  used.  Witmer's  method, 
because  it  leaves  the  examiner  free  to  fit  the  procedure  to  each 
individual  case,  brings  out  features  of  the  child's  mentality 
which  the  other  methods  cannot.  But  it  is  not  adaptable  to  a 
quantitative  study  of  groups  of  children  such  as  was  contem- 
plated, and  its  results  cannot  be  readily  reduced  to  standards  for 
comparing  and  ranking  individuals.  Town's  method  is  more 
truly  a  form  perception  test  than  the  others,  but  preliminary 
studies  showed  that  normal  children  make  so  few  errors  that 
their  records  promise  little  in  the  way  of  norms  and  standards.2 
Goddard's  method  prescribes  a  definite  procedure  which  partly 
prevents  getting  the  most  out  of  the  first  trial,  but  it  gives  quan- 
titative results  and  makes  possible  the  establishment  of  norms 
and  standards.  For  this  reason  it  was  unquestionably  the 
method  to  serve  as  the  basis  of  the  intended  investigation. 

Number  of  Trials  to  be  Given 
After  these  first  preliminaries  had  been  completed  attention 
was  given  to  a  feature  of  Goddard's  method  which  seemed  to  call 
for  testing  before  being  adopted,  namely,  the  giving  of  three 

1  See  chart  III   (page  36),  and  page  51. 


8  REVEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 

trials.  At  the  beginning  it  was  necessary  to  set  age  limits  for 
the  children  to  be  tested.  Records  had  been  kept  of  the  400 
children  and  a  number  of  others  of  children  from  three  to  seven 
years  of  age  were  now  added.  The  results  showed  that  an  oc- 
casional four  year  old  child  could  not  place  all  of  the  blocks 
unless  given  assistance  other  than  urging.  So  five  years  was 
set  as  the  minimum  age  for  the  establishment  of  standards. 
Fourteen  years  was  set  as  the  maximum  age  because  the  form 
board  is  certainly  of  little  value  for  testing  individuals  who  have 
the  ability  of  that  age  or  of  a  year  or  two  younger.  The  ques- 
tion of  the  number  of  trials  was  taken  up  by  testing  200  children, 
20  of  each  age  from  five  to  fourteen  inclusive.  Each  child  was 
given  five  trials  at  placing  the  blocks  and  the  time  of  each  trial 
was  recorded.  The  results  arranged  in  two  year  groups  are 
given  in  tables  I,  II,  and  III.     According  to  table  I  there  is  a 


Age 

Trial 

5-6 

7-8 

9-10 

11-12 

13-14 

Average 

I 

45 

29 

22 

18 

15 

25.8 

II 

34 

24 

18 

16 

14 

21. 1 

III 

31 

23 

17 

15 

13 

19.6 

IV 

30 

21 

18 

14 

13 

19.2 

V 

30 

22 

17 

13 

12 

18.9 

Table  I. — Average  time  in  seconds  for  each  of  five  trials.     The  data  are 
from  the  records  of  20  children  of  each  age  from  five  to  fourteen. 


Age 

Trial 

5-6 

7-8 

9-10 

11. 12 

13-14 

Average 

I 

13.8 

5-5 

5-1 

4-7 

2.6 

6.3 

II 

11.0 

5-2 

3-4 

2.8 

3-0 

5-i 

III 

9-5 

3-5 

3-2 

2.5 

2.3 

4.2 

IV 

7-8 

3-8 

3-1 

2.5 

2.1 

3-9 

V 

7-6 

3-i 

3-3 

2.4 

2.2 

3-7 

Table  II. — Standard  deviations  for  the  data  of  table  I. 


Age 

Trial 

5-6 

7-8 

9.10 

II. 12 

13-14 

Total 

I 

1 

0 

2 

I 

2 

6 

II 

8 

9 

9 

8 

6 

40 

III 

11 

12 

14 

10 

12 

59 

IV 

13 

11 

13 

19 

12 

68 

V 

14 

17 

19 

20 

18 

88 

Table  III. — Number  of  individuals  making  their  shortest  record  on  the 
first  trial,  on  the  second  trial,  etc.  for  the  five  trials.  Data  of  table  I. 
Where  the  shortest  record  was  made  on  two  different  trials  each  is  credited 
with  it. 


PRELIMINARY  STUDIES  9 

general  decrease  in  the  length  of  time  records  of  successive  trials, 
the  average  falling  from  25.8  seconds  for  the  first  trial  to  19.6 
seconds  for  the  third  trial.  Each  age  group  shows  the  decrease 
regularly  for  the  first  three  trials.  The  decrease  for  the  fourth 
and  the  fifth  trials  is  not  so  marked,  the  time  averages  being 
19.2  seconds  and  18.9  seconds  respectively,  and  in  some  of  the 
groups  the  decrease  is  not  regular.  Variability  (Standard  de- 
viations, table  II)  also  shows  a  decrease  with  successive  trials, 
the  averages  of  the  five  in  order  being  6.3,  5.1,  4.2,  3.9,  and  3.7 
seconds.  Here  also  the  decrease  is  greatest  in  the  first  three 
trials  and  the  age  groups  show  regular  decreases  except  in  the 
fourth  and  fifth.  Table  III  indicates  that  practice  is  a  very  im- 
portant factor,  most  of  the  shortest  records  being  made  after 
the  second  trial,  and  a  larger  number  on  the  fifth  trial  than  on 
any  other.  This  evidence  has  less  weight  when  considered  in 
the  light  of  the  small  average  time  decreases  for  the  fourth  and 
the  fifth  trials  as  has  been  noted  in  table  I,  for  with  such  small 
average  decreases,  it  must  have  been  that  in  a  great  number  of 
cases  the  last  trials  were  shortest  by  only  a  second  or  two. 
These  three  tables  indicate  that  in  general  the  first  trial  is  the 
most  irregular  in  every  way  and  so  is  the  least  reliable.  Like- 
wise the  fifth  trial  is  the  most  reliable,  and  of  the  five  trials  each 
is  more  reliable  than  those  preceding  it.  The  third  trial  is  so 
much  more  consistent  than  the  first  and  the  second  that  the  neces- 
sity of  giving  at  least  three  trials  is  obvious.  But  the  differences 
between  the  third,  fourth,  and  fifth  are  comparatively  small  and 
as  will  be  shown  farther  on,  a  difference  of  a  second  or  two  in 
indices  is  of  little  consequence.  It  is  evident  then  that  the  de- 
mands for  brevity  and  convenience  in  a  test  like  this  more  than 
offset  the  small  gain  in  accuracy  that  would  be  made  by  giving 
a  fourth  or  a  fifth  trial.  Therefore  the  adoption  of  three  trials 
for  the  standard  method  is  justified. 

Position  of  the  Blocks  in  the  Three  Piles 

Another  preliminary  study  was  the  testing  of  93  totally  blind 
children  in  the  Pennsylvania  Institution  for  the  Blind.     Certain 


io  REUEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 

features  of  the  test  stand  out  more  clearly  in  the  work  of  the 
blind  than  in  the  more  rapid  and  less  labored  work  of  those  who 
see.  One  feature  observed  was  that  when  two'  difficult  blocks 
or  two  that  are  often  interchanged  are  picked  up  by  the  two 
hands  at  the  same  time,  it  is  likely  to  confuse  the  child  and  to 
prevent  his  making  the  best  record  of  which  he  is  capable.  The 
star  and  the  cross  are  the  most  often  interchanged  by  the  blind 
and  the  lozenge  and  the  enlongated  hexagon  by  seeing  children. 
This  observation  led  to  the  rule  that  in  piling  the  blocks  for  chil- 
dren who  have  vision  the  lozenge  and  the  elongated  hexagon 
must  not  be  placed  in  the  same  layer  in  the  piles.  This  usually 
prevents  their  being  picked  up  simultaneously.  It  was  also  ob- 
served especially  in  the  blind  that  if  the  star  is  picked  up  early 
in  the  trial  and  refuses  to  slip  into  place  the  child  is  often  con- 
fused thereby  and  has  unnecessary  trouble  with  the  other  blocks. 
It  was  therefore  decided  that  this,  the  most  difficult  block  to  fit 
into  place,  should  never  be  left  on  the  top  of  a  pile.  If  picked  up 
late  in  the  trial  it  cannot  disturb  the  handling  of  so  many  other 
blocks. 

Relative  Importance  of  Touch  and  Vision  in  the  Test 

The  main  purpose  in  testing  the  blind  children  was  to  get 
further  evidence  as  to  the  relative  importance  of  the  visual  and 
the  tactual  senses  in  the  form  board  test.  In  spite  of  the  fact 
that  the  child  gets  no  tactile  impression  of  the  recesses  while 
placing  the  blocks,  it  is  the  opinion  of  some  examiners  that  touch 
is  depended  on  considerably  by  children  who  see.  Careful  obser- 
vation however,  has  shown  that  they  usually  pick  up  the  blocks 
with  no  effort  to  get  a  tactile  impression  of  them.  In  the  tests 
with  the  smaller  board  no  advantage  was  taken  of  the  clearer 
tactile  impressions  which  the  smaller  blocks  must  have  given.  In- 
trospective reports  of  students  of  psychology  who  were  given  the 
test  indicate  that  there  is  little  dependence  on  touch.  Some 
blindfolded  children  are  unable  to  place  the  blocks  at  all,  and 
blindfolded  adults  have  great  difficulty,  requiring  on  an  average 
about  three  minutes  for  the  first  trial.     Table  IV  shows  the 


PRELIMINARY  STUDIES 


ii 


Number  of 
individuals 

Average 
age 

Average 
time  in 
seconds 

Average 

number  of 

errors 

Blind    from   birth 

31 

13 

69 

4-3 

Vision  lost  before 
the  age  of  three 

32 

15 

S3 

3-8 

Vision    lost   between 
the   ages   of   three 
and  ten 

22 

14 

37 

1-4 

Table  IV. — Results  from  form  board  tests  of  totally  blind  children. 

records  made  by  the  blind.  At  the  beginning  of  the  test  the 
child  explored  the  board  with  his  hands,  examining  every  recess 
and  handling  its  corresponding  block.  He  was  then  given  three 
trials,  each  of  which  was  timed  and  a  record  was  taken  of  the 
number  of  errors.  The  data  given  in  the  table  are  from  the  short- 
est of  the  three  time  records  and  the  number  of  errors  made  in 
that  trial.  It  might  be  expected  that  those  who  have  been  blind 
from  birth  would  be  the  most  successful  in  the  test  because  of 
having  always  depended  on  the  tactile  sense  instead  of  having 
adapted  themselves  to  it  after  form  and  position  had  been  learned 
visually,  but  the  results  do  not  fulfill  this  expectation.  Those 
who  had  been  blind  from  birth  required  the  longest  time  for 
placing  the  blocks,  an  average  of  69  seconds,  while  those  who 
had  retained  their  vision  until  after  the  age  of  three  required  on 
the  average  only  39  seconds.  The  average  number  of  errors 
made  by  the  two  groups  were  4.3  and  1.4  respectively,' — further 
evidence  of  the  difficulty  of  the  test  for  those  who  had  been  blind 
from  birth.  Obviously  they  were  hindered  by  something  or 
else  those  who  had  visual  experience  were  helped  by  something. 
The  small  age  differences  could  not  have  provided  the  factor. 
Since  the  three  groups  differed  in  no  other  way,  the  better  suc- 
cess of  those  who  had  had  visual  experience  must  have  been 
due  to  something  that  they  retained  from  it.  The  conclusion 
must  be  that  they  retained  their  visual  imagery  and  were  assisted 


12  REUEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 

by  it  in  the  interpretation  of  their  tactile  impressions.  The  fact 
that  those  who  lack  visual  imagery  find  the  form  board  test  so 
difficult  indicates  that  vision  is  much  more  important  than  the 
tactile  sense  in  the  test ;  in  fact  this  evidence  added  to  that  from 
observations  and  from  introspections  of  normal  subjects  leads  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  tactile  sense  is  an  almost  negligible  factor 
in  the  form  board  test.3 

Summary 

The  conclusions  from  these  preliminary  studies  have  been  re- 
ported on  the  preceding  pages  in  the  order  in  which  they  were 
reached.  In  the  following  summary  they  are  more  conveniently 
grouped. 

i.  Without  a  long  and  elaborate  series  of  experiments  (prob- 
ably not  worth  while),  one  could  not  improve  on  the  size,  arrange- 
ment, and  choice  of  forms  as  they  appear  on  the  standard  form 
board. 

2.  In  the  test,  the  form  board  should  lie  horizontally  on  a  table 
which  is  low  enough  to  allow  the  child  to  lean  over  and  look 
down  directly  upon  the  center  of  the  board.  The  blocks  should 
lie  in  three  piles  at  the  top  of  the  board,  with  no  block  in  the 
pile  nearest  to  its  recess,  the  lozenge  and  the  elongated  hexagon 
in  different  layers,  and  the  star  not  at  the  top  of  a  pile. 

3.  Goddard's  method  or  a  modification  of  it  is  the  most  prom- 
ising for  a  quantitative  study  and  for  the  establishing  of  norms 
and  standards  for  comparing  and  ranking  individuals. 

4.  This  method  cannot  be  standardized  for  children  younger 
than  five  years  of  age  because  some  of  them  cannot  place  all  of 
the  blocks  without  help  other  than  urging.  It  is  not  worth  while 
to  establish  norms  for  those  above  fourteen. 

5.  The  tactile  sense  figures  very  little  in  this  test. 

'Fernald,  Psychological  Bulletin,  X,  62;  Sylvester,  Psychological  Bulletin, 
X,  210;  Dearborn,  American  Journal  of  Psychology,  XXIV,  204. 


Ill 

A  STUDY  OF  THE  FORM  BOARD  TEST  IN  ITS  APPLI- 
CATION TO  RETARDED  AND  DEFECTIVE 
CHILDREN 

The  first  important  study  following  the  preliminary  work  was 
the  testing  of  the  children  in  the  special  backward  classes  of  the 
Philadelphia  Public  Schools.  At  that  time  there  were  45  of 
these  classes  with  a  total  enrollment  of  about  780.  Of  this  num- 
ber some  were  foreign  born  children  placed  there  until  they  could 
get  a  start  in  English,  some  were  there  for  disciplinary  reasons, 
and  some  because  of  deafness,  poor  vision,  or  other  physical  de- 
fects. These  three  groups  were  not  included  and  a  few  other 
children  were  absent  from  school  when  the  tests  were  made,  so 
the  total  number  tested  was  616.  The  ages  of  11  of  these  were 
not  obtainable  so  their  records  were  thrown  out,  leaving  605. 
Goddard's  method  was  used,  modified  as  to  the  piling  of  the 
blocks  and  in  other  ways  to  accord  with  the  conclusions  drawn  in 
the  preliminary  studies.  In  addition  the  child  was  to  be  graded 
on  as  many  features  as  possible.  The  teacher's  estimate  of  the 
child  and  any  other  information  that  she  could  give  concerning 
him  were  also  to  be  used.  The  work  was  undertaken  with  three 
purposes;  first,  to  determine  which  features  of  a  child's  work  at 
the  form  board  can  be  satisfactorily  graded ;  second,  to  find  which 
of  the  obtainable  facts  concerning  him  are  of  value  in  connection 
with  the  test;  and  third,  to  differentiate  the  characteristic  ways 
in  which  children  of  various  types  work  at  the  test.  The  first 
two  of  these  purposes  were  successfully  carried  out  but  the  third 
was  not,  the  605  children  proving  to  be  such  a  hetereogeneous 
group  and  the  data  so  inco-ordinate  as  to  defy  all  attempts  at 
classification.  The  work  had  an  additional  value  in  serving  as 
a  preparation  for  the  more  careful  quantitative  studies  of  normal 
children.  Improved  ways  of  securing  proper  testing  conditions 
were  developed  with  experience  and  the  procedure  of  the  test 
itself  was  adjusted  and  smoothed. 


14  REVEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 

Plan  and  Procedure 

At  the  beginning-  the  test  was  explained  to  the  child  quite 
fully,  and  during  the  explanation  the  examiner  put  all  of  the 
blocks  into  place  and  removed  them  once.  As  it  had  been  de- 
cided to  make  the  time  element  the  main  feature  it  was  thought 
that  the  child  should  be  given  every  chance  to  make  his  best 
possible  record.  (For  a  better  procedure  that  was  worked  out 
later  see  page  34. )     The  child  started  each  trial  from  the  signals, 

"Ready — Go."  The  records  of 
the  handling  of  the  blocks  were 
taken  by  an  assistant  in  the  form 
shown  in  the  accompanying  chart. 
This  specimen  record  shows  that 
the  child  began  by  picking  up 
block  6,  trying  it  at  recess  8,  and 
then  placing  it  in  its  proper  re- 
cess. (See  page  1  for  form  num- 
bering.) Next  blocks  9  and  3 
were  placed   correctly.      Block  o 

61  sec.  77  sec.  49  sec.      was  tried  at  recess  *'  then  unsuc" 

cessfully  at  its  own  recess,  then 

at  recess  5,  and  finally  it  was  fitted  into  its  own  recess.  Two 
errors  were  made  with  block  8  and  one  with  block  1.  Block  5 
was  tried  at  recess  4  and  laid  aside,  then  blocks  4,  2,  7,  and  5 
were  placed  in  order.  Thus  the  handling  of  every  block  in  the 
first  trial  is  shown.  At  the  foot  of  each  column  is  recorded  the 
time  of  the  trial  in  seconds.1 

The  investigator  besides  handling  the  stop  watch  recorded  his 
estimate  on  the  child's  co-ordination,  apparent  mentality,  ability 
at  planning  ahead,  and  use  of  the  hands.  From  the  teacher  were 
obtained  data  including  the  child's  age,  reasons  for  his  being  in 
the  special  class,  whether  she  regarded  him  as  mentally  defective 
or  as  merely  retarded,  his  general  school  progress,  and  her  esti- 
mate of  his  ability  at  hand-work.    At  the  beginning  the  investi- 

*This  is  Goddard's  method  of  taking  the  record. 


FIRST 

SECOND 

THIRD 

TRIAL 

TRIAL 

TRIAL 

686 

9 

939 
725867 

9 
6 

3 

01050 

8548 

2 

81508 

515 

5 

383 

1 

141 

54 
4 

3 

606 

0 

4 
7 
828 

2 

I 

020 

7 

4 

2 

5 

RETARDED  AND  DEFECTIVE  CHILDREN  15 

gator  undertook  to  estimate  certain  other  features  such  as  interest, 
attention,  alertness,  and  learning  ability,  but  one  by  one  they  were 
dropped  as  it  became  evident  that  they  could  not  be  estimated  in 
such  a  way  as  to  have  a  bearing  on  the  test.  After  some  200 
children  had  been  tested,  it  was  evident  that  there  was  another 
feature  which  should  have  been  included,  namely,  poise.  The 
remainder  of  the  children  were  graded  on  this.  Exactly  what  is 
here  meant  by  poise  is  made  clear  in  the  discussion  of  results 
(page  19). 

Age  and  Sex  Considerations 

After  various  attempts  had  been  made  at  arranging  the  data 
it  became  evident  that  the  time  records  have  the  most  consistent 
variability  and  are  therefore  the  best  basis  for  arrangement.  The 
grouping  above  the  18  second  records  in  table  V  is  more  or  less 
forced  but  it  is  the  least  objectionable  of  any  that  were  tried.  In 
the  first  columns  at  the  left  are  shown  the  number  of  individuals 
in  each  time  record  group,  their  distribution  by  ages,  and  their 
average  ages.  Even  these  sub-normal  children  show  some  corre- 
lation between  age  and  the  time  required  for  placing  the  blocks. 
In  the  column  of  average  ages  there  appears  a  gradual  increase 
of  age  from  the  40-49  second  group  to  the  10  second  group,  but 
the  distribution  shows  that  the  shortest  records  were  made  not 
by  the  oldest  but  by  the  fourteen  year  old  group.  The  shortest 
records  focus  toward  that  age.  Arranging  the  data  in  a  way  not 
shown  in  the  table  it  is  found  that  the  average  time  record  for 
each  age  is  as  follows : 

Age  7      8      9    10    11     12    13     14     15     16    17 

Av.    time     22.6  23.7  20.9  19.4  19.1  17.5  16.6  15.0  .16.8  16.5  16.6 

The  fact  that  the  fourteen  year  old  group  made  shorter  records 
on  an  average  than  the  older  ones  is  due  to  the  brighter  children 
dropping  out  of  school  after  the  age  of  fourteen,  which  is  the 
limit  of  compulsory  education.  Why  this  elimination  is  selective, 
leaving  the  less  capable  individuals  in  the  special  backward  classes, 
is  not  pertinent  to  this  study. 

Sex  distribution  is  of  little  importance.     For  reasons  not  of 


i6 


REUEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 


0 

Sex 

Distribution  by 

ages 

»s«s 

4JT3 

bo 

^4) 

dj  8 
c  ° 

Htfi 

i  c 

7      8 

9 

10     11     12     13 

14 

15 

16    17 

a 
u 

9 

> 

< 

1 
6 

Unfinished 

6 

211 

1 

10.8 

4 

2 

50-101 

15 

3      3      3      2 

1 

2 

11.7 

7 

8 

40-49 

21 

1     10 

2 

2              3       1 

1 

1 

97 

7 

14 

30-39 

24 

1       3 

4 

5       5       12 

2 

1 

10.5 

15 

9 

26-29 

33 

1       5 

2 

6843 

2 

1 

1 

10.8 

22 

11 

23-25 

4i 

1       4 

8 

5     11      6      1 

2 

2 

1 

10.7 

27 

14 

21-22 

46 

1 

5 

8966 

5 

4 

1       1 

11.8 

27 

19 

19-20 

60 

2 

8 

8    10    12      7 

5 

6 

2 

11.7 

49 

11 

18 

61 

1 

3 

5    13    22      8 

6 

3 

1 1.9 

51 

10 

17 

49 

1 

2 

1     12    12      9 

7 

4 

1 

12.3 

35 

14 

16 

68 

3 

13      8    11     16 

7 

7 

3 

12.3 

61 

7 

15 

60 

3      6      8    17 

14 

4 

7       1 

13-3 

52 

8 

14 

62 

1      7     13      9 

16 

9 

6      1 

13-4 

54 

8 

13 

3i 

1274 

13 

3 

1 

13-3 

28 

3 

12 

15 

1      5 

7 

2 

13-7 

15 

11 

10 

1       1 

7 

1 

13.8 

10 

10 

3 

3 

14.0 

3 

Total 

605 

7     26 

37 

63    95  in    91 

98 

47 

27      3 

467 

138 

Table  V. — The  data  from  the  605  backward  class  children. 

interest  here,  a  relatively  small  number  of  girls  are  placed  in  the 
special  backward  classes.  It  is  a  matter  of  observation  confirmed 
by  these  results  that  the  girls  of  these  classes,  as  a  group,  are 
more  backward  than  the  boys.  The  table  shows  that  the  shortest 
form  board  records  were  made  by  boys  entirely.  The  average 
for  all  records  was  20.3  seconds  for  boys  and  26.2  seconds  for 
girls.  Obviously  the  girls  of  a  mental  grade  corresponding  to 
the  brighter  boys  in  the  backward  classes  were  left  in  the  regular 
classes.  If  equal  numbers  of  boys  and  of  girls  were  selected  for 
the  special  backward  classes  they  would  be  more  nearly  of  the 
same  grade  of  mentality  and  their  form  board  records  would  be 
more  nearly  equal.  Later  form  board  tests  of  normal  children 
revealed  no  sex  differences. 

The  Time  Records  in  Relation  to  School  Work 
Ability  and  to  Mentality 

The  main  purpose  of  the  columns  on  school  progress,  hand- 
work, and  mentality  is  to  give  the  reader  information  concerning 


RETARDED  AND  DEFECTIVE  CHILDREN 


17 


School  progress 
u 

Hand  work 

u. 

Mentality 

both 

to 

ocks 

1-  (g 

1     v 

D 
0 

J5 

4> 

a 

0 
0 

Q. 

•0 

6 

*5 

> 

en3 
T3    <L> 

0  c 

3 
0  bo 

bo  « 

boo 

u 

u 

o 
o 

u 

O 
O 

u 

E 
■ 

"8 

5 

3 
0 

0 

bo  c  0 

C   rtJS 

u    — 

fe 

a* 

> 

h 

PL. 

> 

tf 

Q 

£ 

> 

CO 

s 

< 

6 

6 

6 

I 

15 

I 

14 

2 

13 

7 

36 

2 

19 

21 

1 

4 

10 

I 

12 

2 

17 

5 

19 

24 

2 

4 

18 

10 

5 

15 

I 

6 

26 

4 

29 

5 

10 

18 

4 

9 

9 

9 

I 

10 

30 

,   3 

6 

32 

12 

10 

19 

5 

11 

9 

7 

2 

6 

38 

1 

9 

36 

10 

15 

21 

7 

12 

8 

5 

3 

18 

39 

J 

16 

40 

23 

13 

24 

9 

15 

13 

6 

12 

49 

1     6 

17 

38 

18 

22 

21 

12 

12 

10 

5 

2 

6 

4i 

5 

15 

29 

23 

8 

18 

14 

12 

1 

5 

5 

16 

47 

8 

18 

42 

34 

9 

25 

20 

13 

3 

2 

13 

45 

6 

23 

3i 

32 

12 

26 

13 

14 

6 

4 

I 

10 

5i 

17 

16 

29 

40 

12 

10 

25 

2 

8 

3 

5 

7 

10 

6 

6 

19 

19 

7 

5 

21 

3 

12 

4 

3 

3 

9 

2 

3 

10 

14 

1 

14 

13 

3 

I 

3 

6 

3 

4 

3 

7 

I 

2 

10 

10 

3 

2 

I 

2 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

28 

n8 

459 

63 

139 

403 

243 

129 

233 

158 

133 

57 

52     1 

Table  V. — Concluded. 

the  kind  of  children  that  were  tested.  The  grading  calls  for  ex- 
planation. School  progress  and  hand-work  were  reported  by 
the  teachers  on  a  three  point  scale :  fair,  poor,  and  very  poor,  the 
standard  being  that  of  ordinary  school  children.  Aside  from 
showing  a  much  stronger  correlation  between  hand-work  ability 
and  form  board  ability  than  between  school  progress  and  form 
board  ability,  the  data  contributes  little  except  that  it  helps  to 
give  a  notion  of  the  personnel  of  the  groups  of  children. 

Unfortunately  no  good  estimate  of  the  grade  of  mentality  of 
each  child  could  be  made.  Had  they  been  graded  or  grouped 
according  to  some  approved  scheme  of  mental  classification  it 
would  have  aided  greatly  in  the  interpretation  of  the  form  board 
results.  The  best  that  could  be  done  was  to  record  the  investi- 
gator's estimate  of  the  child's  mentality  after  he  had  watched 
him  through  the  form  board  test  and  perhaps  asked  him  a  few 
questions.  There  was  also  recorded  the  teacher's  estimate  based 
on  her  impression  of  the  child  as  her  pupil.  A  two  point  grading 
was  adopted;  all  being  graded  either  as  retarded  or  defective. 


i8  REUEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 

The  criterion  was  that  those  placed  in  the  lower  group,  the  de- 
fectives, had  evidently  been  subnormal  from  birth  and  could  never 
have  been  trained  to  economical  and  social  independence.  This 
classification  is  far  from  satisfactory  and  it  involves  a  further 
misuse  of  the  already  over-worked  terms,  retarded  and  defective, 
but  it  served  fairly  well  for  a  common  basis  for  estimates  by 
teacher  and  investigator.  In  cases  where  the  two  agreed  there 
was  some  likelihood  of  their  being  correct.  The  middle  column, 
marked  doubtful,  contains  129  cases  on  which  the  opinions  of 
the  examiner  and  the  teacher  disagreed.  It  is  unfortunate  that 
this  number  should  be  so  large,  but  it  is  likely  that  most  of  them 
were  borderline  cases  or  cases  not  easily  understood.  The  dis- 
tribution in  the  retarded  and  the  defective  columns  indicates  that 
the  former  group  did  the  test  much  the  more  successfully.  The 
average  time  records  for  the  two  groups  were  16.5  seconds  and 
30  seconds  respectively.  Although  the  grouping  is  no  doubt 
faulty,  there  is  certainly  strong  evidence  here  of  a  correlation 
between  mentality  and  ability  at  the  form  board  test. 

Important  Features  Other  Than  Time  and  Errors 

The  four  columns  next  to  the  last  in  table  V  give  the  data 
which  it  was  found  can  be  taken  in  connection  with  the  form 
board  test  and  which  contribute  to  the  value  of  the  test  in  diagno- 
sis. First  is  shown  the  number  of  children  of  each  time  record 
group  who  used  two  hands  successfully  and  simultaneously  in 
placing  the  blocks.  As  compared  with  normal  children  (see  page 
50)  a  relatively  small  number  did  this.  One  feature  observed 
but  not  shown  in  the  table  is  that  several  of  the  older  children 
who  used  but  one  hand  at  a  time,  changed  from  one  to  the  other 
in  successive  trials,  apparently  succeeding  with  one  as  well  as 
with  the  other.     Normal  children  rarely  change  hands. 

In  muscular  co-ordination  133  were  graded  as  very  poor.  Inco- 
ordination is  not  so  noticeable  in  children  whose  mentality  is 
such  that  they  attempt  no  quick  or  accurate  movements,  so  these 
results  do  not  mean  that  all  but  133  of  these  605  had  good  co- 
ordination. 


RETARDED  AND  DEFECTIVE  CHILDREN  19 

Poise,  as  here  used,  means  the  ability  to  work  at  one's  maxi- 
mum speed  without  losing  control  and  getting  confused.  When 
a  child  in  his  efforts  to  place  the  blocks  quickly,  over  hurries  and 
gets  flustered  so  that  he  makes  numerous  and  inexcusable  errors 
or  hesitates  in  a  semi-dazed  way,  he  does  so  because  he  is  lacking 
in  this  quality  which  we  have  chosen  to  call  poise.  Take  for  in- 
stance one  of  these  backward  cases,  an  eleven  year  old  boy  whose 
record  for  the  three  trials  in  order  were  36,  52,  and  62  seconds, 
and  the  number  of  errors  4,  5,  and  II.  His  efforts  at  hurrying 
caused  him  to  make  errors  and  to  lose  time.  When  given  a  fourth 
trial  and  told  to  work  slowly  he  placed  the  blocks  in  21  seconds 
and  made  no  errors.  Some  defectives  show  a  lack  of  poise  as 
soon  as  they  begin  to  work  rapidly.  Urging  by  the  examiner  is 
likely  to  throw  them  into  confusion.  Later  studies  of  normal 
children  showed  that  although  they  are  sometimes  momentarily 
hindered  by  over  hurrying,  they  do  not  go  into  utter  confusion. 
Practically  all  of  them  make  better  records  when  urged  by  the 
examiner  during  the  work.  In  other  words,  the  child  who  is 
lacking  in  poise  is  very  likely  not  of  normal  mentality.  As  pre- 
viously stated,  no  records  were  kept  of  this  factor  until  the  chil- 
dren in  several  of  the  classes  had  been  tested.  Of  2>77  who  were 
marked  on  poise,  57  were  graded  as  seriously  lacking  in  the  qual- 
ity. (Table  V.)  Many  of  these  57  were  of  the  excitable  defective 
type ;  others  could  not  be  called  defectives  but  they  were  mentally 
retarded  because  of  nervous  trouble.  Many  of  them  made  numer- 
ous attempts  to  fit  blocks  into  wrong  recesses,  the  average  of  the 
57  being  7.3  errors  each.  Poise  is  a  detail  which  the  examiner 
can  observe  to  advantage.  It  is  important  not  only  in  extreme 
cases,  but  in  the  many  who  momentarily  lose  control  or  show  a 
tendency  to  do  so  there  is  often  some  instability  that  calls  for 
further  study. 

By  planning  ahead  is  meant  that  before  the  signal  "Go",  the 
child  glances  at  the  blocks  on  the  top  of  the  piles,  then  at  their  re- 
cesses and  is  thus  ready  at  the  signal  to  shoot  them  into  place 
without  hesitation.  Most  normal  adults  and  many  children  do 
this  (See  page  50)  but  younger  children  do  not.     Only  52  of 


20  REUEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 

these  backward  class  children  did  so,  according  to  table  V.  An 
individual  is  credited  with  planning  ahead  if  he  does  it  on  one  or 
more  trials. 

The  Records  of  Errors 

In  the  last  column  of  table  V  is  shown  the  average  number  of 
errors  made  by  each  individual  in  all  three  trials.  For  the  ex- 
tremely long  time  records  the  average  number  of  errors  is  36, 
for  the  shortest  records  the  average  is  3,  and  between  these  ex- 
tremes there  is  a  somewhat  irregular  correlation  between  the 
length  of  time  record  and  the  number  of  errors.  These  605 
backward  children  averaged  more  than  6  errors  each,  whereas 
normal  children  average  less  than  three  (chart  III,  page  36). 
Evidently  a  large  number  of  errors  indicates  low  mentality. 

A  statement  of  the  number  of  times  that  each  possible  kind 
of  error  was  made  is  given  in  table  VI.    Horizontally  the  spaces 


Recesses 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

0 

Total 

t 

4 

6 

3 

62 

81 

3 

4 

63 

1 

15 

242 

2 

20 

2 

24 

32 

19 

9 

14 

12 

9 

75 

216 

3 

7 

16 

4 

3 

9 

18 

16 

7 

62 

42 

184 

4 

38 

3 

9 

4 

102 

3 

b 

3i 

4 

99 

299 

O 

5 

23 

4 

2 

45 

4 

5 

17 

58 

4 

162 

PQ 

6 

9 

s 

8 

6 

12 

55 

07 

31 

193 

7 

21 

17 

23 

15 

65 

67 

08 

4 

97 

377 

8 

in 

4 

s 

61 

159 

24 

9 

1 

35 

409 

9 

2 

19 

no 

4 

10 

10 

3 

4 

7 

20 

195 

0 

4i 

60 

15 

305 

116 

8 

27 

61 

8 

2 

643 

Total 

276 

136 

203 

537 

577 

153 

151 

37i 

96 

420 

2920 

Table  VI. — Distribution  of  the  kinds  of  errors  made  by  the  605  backward 
class  children.  The  upper  line,  for  instance,  indicates  4  futile  attempts  to 
fit  block  1  into  its  own  recess,  6  attempts  to  fit  it  into  recess  2,  3  at  recess  3, 
62  at  recess  4,  etc.,  and  a  total  of  242  errors  with  this  block.  Since  each  of 
the  605  children  had  three  trials,  a  total  of  1815  errors  with  each  block  was 
possible.     (See  footnote,  page  23.) 

represent  the  ten  recesses  of  the  form  board  and  vertically  they 
represent  the  ten  blocks.  The  numbers  in  the  upper  horizontal 
line  show  the  number  of  futile  attempts  at  putting  block  1  into 
each  of  the  ten  recesses.  Four  attempts  at  its  own  recess  failed 
and  there  were  six  attempts  at  recess  2,  three  at  recess  3,  sixty- 


RETARDED  AND  DEFECTIVE  CHILDREN  21 

two  at  recess  4,  and  so  on  for  the  others.  The  other  horizontal 
lines  give  corresponding  data  for  the  other  blocks.2  According 
to  this  table,  by  far  the  most  frequent  error  was  that  of  attempt- 
ing to  put  block  o  into  recess  4.  The  only  possible  errors  not 
made  were  5-9  and  6-9  and  futile  attempts  to  fit  block  6,  7,  and  8 
into  their  own  recesses.3 

One  important  conclusion  is  to  be  drawn  by  arranging  the  data 
in  the  form  of  table  VII.    Here  the  twelve  most  frequent  errors4 


Time  in 
Seconds 

0-4 

8-1 

Kind  of  Errors 
8-5  6-8  7-8  4-0    1-4  3-9  9-0 

6-7   0-5  9-3 

30  to  IOI 
20   to   29 
15   to    19 
10   to    14 

4 
11 

15 
16 

3 

4 
4 

2 

4222233 
7      3      3      4      2      2      4 
6235223 
7215323 

224 
3      5      6 
1       5      3 
242 

Table  VII. — The  twelve  most  frequent  kinds  of  errors  of  the  605  back- 
ward class  children  arranged  according  to  the  time  records.  The  data  is  in 
per  cent,  of  the  total  number  of  errors  made  by  each  of  the  four  time  record 
groups.  Thus,  the  4  in  the  upper  left  space  means  that  of  the  total  number  of 
mistakes  made  by  the  group  whose  time  records  were  30  seconds  or  more, 
4  per  cent,  were  the  0-4  error. 

are  arranged  according  to  four  time  record  groups, — those  longer 
than  29  seconds,  the  20  to  29  second  records,  the  15  to  19  second 
records,  and  those  shorter  than  15  seconds.  This  is  a  condensa- 
tion of  the  grouping  that  is  used  in  table  V.  The  data  are  given 
in  percentages  of  the  total  number  of  errors  made  by  each  group. 
In  table  XIV,  page  40,  it  is  shown  that  with  normal  children  of 
all  ages  the  0-4  error  is  by  far  the  most  frequent  and  that  the 

*In  this  enumeration  of  kinds  of  errors,  all  three  trials  are  included  but 
only  the  first  wrong  recess  tried  with  each  block.  For  example,  from  trial 
I  in  the  record  shown  on  page  14  there  was  taken  only  the  6-8,  0-1,  8-5,  1-4, 
and  5-4  errors.  The  failure  to  fit  block  o  into  its  own  recess  and  the  attempt 
with  this  block  at  recess  4  are  not  included.  This  is  necessary  because  only 
the  first  error  is  made  directly  after  the  child  has  looked  at  the  block  in  the 
pile  and  glanced  over  the  board  for  its  recess.  The  errors  after  this  first 
one  are  made  under  various  conditions  and  so  do  not  merely  represent  a 
failure  to  perceive  the  relation  of  block  to  recess. 

*  Where  the  kind  of  error  is  designated  by  two  numbers  separated  by 
a  dash,  the  first  number  names  the  block  and  the  second  the  recess. 

*The  twelve  most  frequent  errors  are  almost  the  same  in  tables  VII  and 
XIV.  They  are  arranged  here  according  to  their  frequency  in  the  latter, 
in  order  that  the  two  tables  may  be  compared. 


22  REVEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 

occurrence  of  the  more  common  ones  does  not  vary  significantly 
with  age.  In  table  VII  the  same  is  true  of  the  two  groups  whose 
time  records  average  below  20  seconds  and  to  a  less  degree  of 
the  20  to  29  second  group,  but  in  the  longest  records  group  there 
is  little  tendency  to  make  one  kind  of  error  more  frequently  than 
another.  Since  nearly  all  of  these  longest  records  were  made  by 
children  of  quite  low  mentality,  the  one  conclusion  to  be  drawn 
is  that  if  a  child  makes  the  0-4  error  and  the  other  common  ones 
more  frequently  than  others  he  is  to  be  credited  for  doing  so.  In 
other  words,  he  is  probably  of  higher  mentality  than  a  similar 
child  whose  errors  are  more  evenly  distributed.  This  feature  is 
peculiar  in  that  it  varies  with  the  degree  of  mentality  but  not  with 
the  age  and  it  is  therefore  especially  important. 

Summary 

This  study  of  retarded  and  defective  children  yielded  the  fol- 
lowing conclusions : 

1.  Those  children  whose  time  records  were  the  longest  are  gen- 
erally of  the  lowest  mentality. 

2.  It  is  impracticable  to  record  observations  on  interest,  atten- 
tion, alertness,  and  certain  other  features  in  a  regular  manner. 
In  cases  where  they  are  important  they  must  be  recorded  in  the 
examiner's  general  notes  or  in  connection  with  other  tests  and 
parts  of  the  examination.  Muscular  co-ordination  and  poise  are 
splendidly  revealed  in  the  form  board  test  and  are  well  worth 
grading,  and  records  should  be  made  of  whether  two  hands  are 
used  at  the  same  time  successfully  and  whether  the  child  plans 
ahead. 

3.  Records  of  the  handling  of  the  blocks  can  be  satisfactorily 
taken  and  are  of  great  value.  The  greatest  number  of  errors 
occur  in  the  long  time  records  and  are  made  by  children  of  low 
mentality. 

4.  Some  kinds  of  errors  are  more  common  than  others.  A 
tendency  toward  making  more  of  certain  errors  than  of  others 
indicates  higher  mentality  than  does  a  tendency  to  make  one  error 
as  often  as  another. 


IV 

A  SPECIAL  STUDY  OF  THE  TIME  AND  ERROR 
FEATURES  OF  THE  FORM  BOARD  TEST 

The  most  serious  difficulty  to  be  met  in  the  study  of  age  varia- 
tions in  the  results  of  any  test  lies  in  the  differences  of  advance- 
ment of  the  individuals  in  each  age  group.  Every  child  is  more 
or  less  retarded  or  precocious,  or  both.  Not  only  may  his  phys- 
iological age,  his  mental  age,  his  pedagogical  age,  and  his  chron- 
ological age  be  at  variance  with  each  other  but  there  may  be  a 
wide  range  of  variation  within  each  except  the  last.  For  in- 
stance, a  child  ten  years  of  age  pedagogically  (that  is,  in  fourth 
grade  at  school)  may  be  well  advanced  in  reading  but  very  back- 
ward in  writing  or  arithmetic.  Physiologically  he  may  have  the 
muscular  co-ordination  of  a  twelve  year  old  but  only  the  muscular 
strength  of  a  child  two  or  three  years  younger.  Mentally  he  may 
pass  the  digit  memory  test  of  the  twelfth  year  Binet  questions 
but  fail  on  the  ninth  year  definition  question.  Excluding  de- 
fectives and  other  noticeably  peculiar  individuals,  one  still  has  in 
ordinary  children  of  a  given  chronological  age,  a  most  hetero- 
geneous group.  The  ages  are  scattered  over  the  entire  year  so 
that  an  eight  year  old  child  may  be  360  days  older  than  certain 
others  of  the  eight  year  old  group  but  only  a  day  or  two  younger 
than  some  of  the  nine  year  old  group.  To  smooth  out  such  varia- 
tions and  to  obtain  reliable  results  in  a  study  of  age  changes 
requires  a  huge  mass  of  data,  the  collecting  of  which  is  imprac- 
ticable in  a  study  such  as  this  one  with  the  form  board.  Under 
the  most  favorable  circumstances  only  ten  to  fifteen  children  can 
be  tested  in  an  hour.  In  the  present  investigation  the  difficulty 
was  partly  met  by  testing  strictly  limited  groups  of  children,  se- 
lected according  to  requirements  which  partly  eliminated  the  fac- 
tors causing  the  heterogeneity.    Reasonably  extensive  data  from 


24  REVEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 

groups  as  nearly  homogeneous  as  careful  selecting  could  make 
them  were  collected. 

Selection  of  the  Children 

Five  hundred  children  were  tested;  25  boys  and  25  girls  of  each 
age  from  five  to  fourteen  inclusive.  Reasons  for  these  age  limits 
have  been  given  on  page  9.  The  requirements  were  as  follows : — 
( 1 )  The  birthday  of  each  child  selected  came  within  a  month  of 
the  day  on  which  the  test  was  given.  This  made  the  ages  nearly 
exact  by  years.  (2)  He  was  neither  retarded  nor  accelerated 
pedagogically  according  to  Philadelphia  Public  School  standards. 
That  is,  the  fourteen  year  olds  were  selected  from  the  eighth 
grade,  the  thirteen  year  olds  from  the  eleventh  grade,  and  so  on 
down  to  the  eight  year  olds  from  the  second  grade.  On  this  scale 
seven  year  olds  would  have  been  taken  from  the  first  grade  and 
there  would  have  been  no  grade  for  six  year  olds.  The  best  that 
could  be  done  was  to  select  seven  year  olds  from  the  upper  first 
grade  and  six  year  olds  from  the  lower  first  grade.  Five  year 
olds  were  selected  from  the  kindergarten.  (3)  Each  child  was 
American  born  and  his  parents'  name  and  occupation  indicated 
nothing  in  race  or  in  home  conditions  especially  favorable  or 
unfavorable.  Colored  children  were  excluded.  (4)  He  was  free 
from  physical  defect  and  there  was  nothing  peculiar  or  striking 
in  his  personal  appearance.  (5)  Mentally  he  was  not  especially 
bright  or  dull  or  in  any  way  different  from  ordinary  children. 

The  method  of  selection  was  as  follows:  The  investigator 
took  from  the  school  records  the  names  of  children  meeting  the 
first  three  of  the  above  requirements.  Principals  and  teachers 
checked  off  from  these  lists  the  names  of  those  who  in  their 
opinion  did  not  meet  the  fourth  and  the  fifth  requirements.  Fi- 
nally, when  the  children  appeared  at  the  testing  room  the  investi- 
gator rejected  those  whose  personal  appearance  led  him  to  suspect 
and  physical  or  mental  peculiarity.  This  was  the  final  elimination. 
All  children  who  were  admitted  to  the  test  were  allowed  to  com- 
plete it  and  no  records  were  thrown  out.  The  elimination  by 
these  requirements  was  heavy,  the  records  of  some  11,000  chil- 


TIME  AND  ERROR  FEATURES  2$ 

dren  being  gone  over  before  500  meeting  the  requirements  were 
found. 

A  difficult  part  of  the  work  was  the  securing  of  conditions 
favorable  to  the  children's  assuming  the  proper  attitude  toward 
the  test.  As  compared  with  the  carefully  controlled  conditions 
of  most  experiments  in  the  psychological  laboratory,  it  is  almost 
presumptuous  to  report  as  psychological  tests,  work  done  in  a 
public  school  and  especially  by  an  investigator  who  is  a  stranger 
in  the  school.  If  one,  however,  keeps  in  mind  the  ideal  of  psy- 
chological laboratory  conditions  and  does  not  allow  himself  to 
proceed  when  conditions  are  not  at  the  best,  he  is  well  repaid  for 
it  in  the  reliability  of  his  results.  First  it  is  necessary  to  secure 
the  good  will  and  the  co-operation  of  principals  and  teachers.  If 
they  are  impatient  and  not  interested  the  children  will  not  do 
their  best.  Then  the  children  must  be  dealt  with  tactfully.  Some 
older  boys  and  girls  are  inclined  to  regard  the  tests  as  too  child- 
ish for  them,  and  the  little  folks  are  likely  to  associate  it  with 
medical  inspectors,  throat  examinations,  and  vaccinations.  From 
the  experience  gained  in  the  preliminary  tests  and  in  the  tests  in 
the  backward  classes,  there  had  been  worked  out  a  definite  plan 
of  procedure  which  reduced  the  disturbance  of  the  school  to  a 
minimum,  usually  secured  the  hearty  co-operation  of  principals 
and  teachers,  and  put  the  children  into  the  proper  attitude  toward 
the  investigator  and  the  test.  In  a  few  cases  after  the  work  had 
been  begun  in  a  school,  it  was  postponed  or  abandoned  because 
of  some  disturbing  influence  or  lack  of  co-operation  on  the  part  of 
the  principal.    No  tests  were  given  under  unfavorable  conditions. 

The  testing  procedure  was  that  described  on  pages  14  and  15, 
except  that  the  investigator  himself  took  no  data.  He  held  the 
stop  watch  and  otherwise  gave  his  attention  to  the  management 
of  the  test. 

Reduction  of  the  Records  to  Time  Indices 

The  data  thus  collected  consisted  of  individual  records  of  the 
500  children  showing  the  time  required  for  each  of  the  three  trials 
and  the  order  in  which  the  blocks  were  handled,  with  occasional 


26  REVEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 

observations  dictated  by  the  investigator  at  the  end  of  the  test. 
The  first  problem  to  be  taken  up  in  the  study  of  the  time  records 
was  that  of  reducing  each  individual's  record  to  a  significant  value 
which  would  stand  as  an  index  of  his  form  board  ability.  In  the 
preliminary  studies  it  had  been  found  that  the  time  of  the  third 
trial  would  be  a  more  reliable  index  than  the  time  of  either  of 
the  others.  (Page  9.)  And  according  to  the  usual  procedure 
in  psychological  tests,  especially  where  practice  is  so  strong  a 
factor,  the  time  of  the  third  trial  would  be  taken  as  the  index. 
But  Witmer's  emphasis  on  the  importance  of  the  child's  first  ef- 
forts suggests  the  use  of  the  time  of  the  first  trial  as  the  index, 
and  he  would  probably  record  this  if  he  were  to  keep  a  time  re- 
cord. Woodworth  also  favors  the  use  of  the  first  trial  record. 
But  the  evidence  in  the  preliminary  studies  was  that  this  trial's 
results  are  too  irregular  to  be  reliable.  Goddard  takes  the  short- 
est of  the  three  trials  for  the  index.  Whipple1  and  Franz2  use 
this  shortest  of  three  trials  index  in  some  of  their  strength  tests. 
A  fourth  method  of  scoring  suggests  itself, — taking  the  average 
time  of  the  three  trials  as  the  index.  This  would  include  the 
third  trial,  the  first  trial  and  the  shortest  trial,  giving  weight  to 
each. 

The  distribution  of  records  arranged  according  to  each  of 
these  four  standards  is  shown  in  tables  VIII,  IX,  X,  and  XI,  and 
their  curves  of  averages  of  time  records  for  each  age  are  shown 
in  chart  I.  It  is  quite  remarkable  that  the  four  curves  run  so 
nearly  parallel.  So  far  as  is  shown  in  the  curves  themselves,  any 
one  of  them  could  be  used  as  the  standard  index  without  serious 
error,  the  time  averages  for  the  different  ages  varying  in  about 
the  same  way  in  all.  But  variability  of  individual  records  indi- 
cates that  these  four  standards  applied  to  individual  cases  would 
give  very  different  rankings.  Take  for  instance  two  of  the  four- 
teen year  old  records.  A's  record  is  14,  II,  and  9  seconds  for 
the  three  trials,  and  B's  record  is  9,  II,  and  10  seconds.  Now 
with  the  shortest  trial  as  the  standard  for  an  index  A  and  B  did 

1  Manual  of  Mental  and  Physical  Tests,  pp.  71,  75,  and  80. 
"Mental  Examination  Methods,  p.  49. 


103 

86 

68 

6i 

56 

5i 

2 

50 

2 

1 

49 

48 

2 

47 

1 

1 

46 

2 

45 

2 

44 

2 

1 

43 

1 

42 

3 

41 

2 

2 

1 

40 

4 

1 

39 

2 

1 

38 

2 

1 

-3  & 

3 

1 

1 

§  36 

1 

2 

2 

g  35 

2 

1 

■  34 

3 

2 

1 

.5  33 

1 

1 

<u  32 

1 

1 

§   31 

1 

1 

2 

1 

H  30 

1 

6 

1 

29 

2 

3 

3 

2 

1 

28 

2 

2 

5 

3 

2 

27 

2 

4 

3 

1 

1 

26 

1 

2 

1 

1 

3 

1 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

2 

24 

7 

2 

2 

2 

23 

2 

4 

5 

22 

3 

5 

4 

2 

1 

21 

1 

3 

6 

6 

6 

1 

1 

20 

1 

5 

7 

6 

3 

1 

19 

4 

8 

5 

4 

5 

1 

1 

18 

3 

3 

4 

7 

4 

1 

1 

17 

8 

10 

6 

3 

2 

2 

16 

1 

1 

2 

4 

7 

6 

3 

5 

6 

15 

1 

5 

12 

9 

9 

5 

14 

3 

9 

10 

10 

10 

13 

1 

1 

11 

8 

7 

12 

1 

1 

5 

6 

6 

11 

2 

3 

4 

6 

10 

2 

3 

2 

9 

2 

1 

3 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Age 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

Table  VIII. — Distribution  of  the  /Jr.rf  /na/  time  records. 


95 

I 

7i 

i 

57 

i 

5o 

49 

i 

48 

i 

47 

46 

2 

45 

I 

44 

43 

42 

I 

41 
40 

39 
38 
S  37 
1  36 
§  35 
*  34 
S  33 
u      32 


31 
30 
29 
28 

27 
26 

25 
24 

23 
22 
21 
20 

19 

18 

17 
16 

15 
14 
13 
12 


10 
11 
9 
6 


1 

3 

3 

11 

13 
8 


1 

4 

6 

11 


II 

4 

1 

8 

11 

16 

10 

1 

2 

6 

10 

9 

1 

3 

2 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9   10 
Age. 

11 

12 

13 

14 

Table  IX. — Distribution  of  the  third  trial  time  records. 


83 

1 

71 

1 

So 

49 

1 

48 

1 

47 

46 

45 

44 

43 

1 

42 

2 

4i 

1 

40 

39 

1 

38 

1 

37 

3 

to 

36 

3 

•g 

35 

3 

— 
O 

34 

2 

1 

33 

1 

Ui 

32 

1 

2 

_C 

3i 

4 

2 

U 

30 

1 

1 

S 

29 

5 

2 

H 

28 
27 
26 

25 
24 

23 
22 
21 
20 

2 
5 
5 
4 
1 

2 
2 
3 
.  3 
6 
6 
9 
4 
3 

1 
1 
3 
4 
4 
14 
5 

1 

3 
4 
7 
7 

1 
3 

19 

1 

7 

6 

9 

1 

18 

6 

9 

10 

2 

1 

17 

1 

3 

7 

11 

8 

16 

2 

2 

10 

9 

5 

1 

15 

1 

3 

4 

9 

7 

3 

3 

14 

1 

1 

8 

19 

8 

3 

3 

13 

1 

1 

9 

10 

13 

9 

3 

12 

3 

4 

12 

12 

9 

11 

1 

1 

9 

12 

17 

10 

1 

2 

3 

7 

12 

9 

1 

4 

6 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
Age. 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

Table  X. — Distribution  of  the  shortest  trial  time  records. 


103 

I 

79 

I 

62 

I 

SO 

4 

49 

48 

2 

47 

46 

45 

44 

2 

43 

I 

42 

41 

2 

40 

4 

1 

39 

2 

1 

d  38 

4 

*2  37 

1 

§  36 

1 

2 

8  35 

4 

1 

88  34 

1 

5 

1 

•S  33 

2 

1 

v   32 

2 

1 

§  31 

4 

1 

1 

H  30 

2 

2 

29 

6 

6 

28 

3 

2 

1 

. 

?7 

3 

3 

2 

1 

26 

4 

7 

2 

25 

5 

4 

3 

1 

24 

7 

4 

2 

23 

4 

6 

4 

1 

22 

8 

1 

5 

3 

21 

1 

5 

9 

7 

3 

20 

1 

7 

6 

8 

1 

1 

1 

19 

2 

5 

7 

3 

2 

18 

1 

2 

6 

8 

8 

2 

17 

1 

3 

7 

10 

8 

1 

16 

2 

3 

6 

9 

4 

4 

1 

15 

2 

11 

13 

7 

5 

4 

14 

1 

5 

9 

13 

9 

5 

13 

2 

3 

12 

13 

14 

12 

1 

7 

10 

14 

II 

3 

4 

7 

8 

10 

1 

1 

3 

9 

1 

1 

1 

I  5         6         7         8 

Table  XI. — Distribution  of  the  average  of  three  trials  time  records. 


9        10        11         12        13        14 
Age. 


TIME  AND  ERROR  FEATURES 


3i 


/=}r:sf  7r/ar/         

7%/>tf7r/a/  


Chart  I. 


/a       w 
sfyf  //rjfcars. 

-Averages  of  the  time  records  of  the  500  selected  children. 


the  test  equally  well,  the  index  for  each  being  9  seconds.  With 
the  third  trial  as  the  standard  A  did  better  than  B,  the  indices 
being  9  and  10.  With  the  first  trial  as  the  standard  B  did  better 
than  A,  the  indices  being  9  and  14.  With  the  average  of  three 
trials  as  the  standard  B  did  better  than  A,  the  indices  being  10 
and  11.  These  are  extreme  cases  but  they  emphasize  the  import- 
ance of  choosing  the  right  one  of  these  standards. 

Since  variability  is  the  great  disturbing  factor,  that  standard 
which  gives  the  lowest  and  most  regular  variability  is  probably 
the  best  of  the  four.  This  criterion  immediately  eliminates  the 
first  trial  standard,  chart  II  showing  that  its  variability  curve  is 
both  higher  and  more  irregular  than  the  other  three.  The  curve 
for  the  third  trial's  variability  is  fairly  low  and  smooth  but  this 
trial  as  a  standard  is  eliminated  by  the  results  shown  in  table  XII. 
This  table  shows  that  of  the  500  records  there  were  but  177 
(138  +  39)  in  which  it  was  the  lowest,  and  in  207  (10  -j-  10 
+  59  +  105  +  I2  +  11)  either  the  second  or  the  first  was  the 


32 


REUEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 


20 


A 


-3 — y     * 

stye  />r  years. 

Chart  II. — Standard  deviations  for  the  data  of  Chart  I. 


Relative  lengths 

Ages 

of  the  three  trials. 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

IO 

11 

12 

13 

14 

Total 

I    =    II    = 

III 

2 

3 

3 

2 

10 

I    =    II    < 

III 

2 

I 

2 

1 

it 

1 

10 

I    =    II    > 

III 

2 

2 

6 

4 

4 

7 

6 

5 

3 

39 

I    >    II    = 

III 

2 

5 

6 

IO 

7 

5 

7 

9 

3 

S 

59 

I    >    II    < 

III 

15 

ii 

16 

13 

ii 

7 

12 

7 

8 

7 

105 

I    >    II   > 

III 

VJ 

18 

17 

ii 

12 

14 

7 

s 

16 

20 

138 

I    <    II    = 

III 

i 

i 

i 

a 

1 

1 

4 

12 

I    <    II    < 

III 

2 

$ 

2 

i 

2 

1 

11 

I    <    II    > 

III 

15 

9 

6 

8 

12 

16 

15 

16 

8 

11 

116 

Total 

So 

SO 

50 

So 

50 

So 

5o 

b^ 

SO 

So 

500 

Table  XII. — Results  for  each  age  in  terms  of  the  relative  lengths  of  the 
three  trials.  The  =■,  >  and  <  signs  indicate  the  relative  lengths  of  the 
time  records  of  the  three  trials.  The  numbers  in  the  body  of  the  table 
show  the  number  of  individuals  of  each  group  whose  three  time  records 
were  in  each  of  the  possible  combinations  of  relative  lengths. 


TIME  AND  ERROR  FEATURES  33 

lowest.  Although  practice  is  probably  the  dominant  factor  in 
the  variability  of  the  length  of  time  records,  the  presence  of  other 
important  factors  is  shown  by  the  many  individual  cases  in  which 
the  first  trial  or  the  second  trial  was  shorter  than  the  third.  Ob- 
servation of  children  working  at  the  test  reveals  the  fact  that 
over-hurrying,  change  of  method  of  handling  the  blocks,  or  diffi- 
culty in  getting  some  block  down  into  its  recess,  may  make  the 
third  trial  longer  than  the  others,  and  that  there  is  an  element  of 
luck  which  makes  the  third  trial  index  an  unfair  one  in  many 
cases.    This  standard  is  therefore  undesirable. 

Taking  up  the  shortest  of  three  trial  index  one  finds  in  chart 
II  that  its  curve  is  the  lowest  and  is  almost  as  smooth  as  any. 
The  smoothness  of  the  curve  for  the  average  of  three  trials  is 
somewhat  discounted  because  of  its  representing  averages  of  aver- 
ages, its  position  for  each  age  being  determined  by  the  average  of 
150  time  records  while  the  corresponding  positions  of  the  other 
curves  are  determined  by  averages  of  50  time  records  each.  By 
the  criterions  of  amount  of  variability  and  regularity  of  varia- 
bility, the  shortest  of  three  trials  is  therefore  the  best  of  the  four 
standards. 

After  this  statistical  study  which  led  to  the  choosing  of  the 
shortest  trial  standard  some  time  was  spent  in  studying  individual 
children,  following  the  form  board  test  with  a  thorough  mental 
examination.  In  many  cases  the  shortest  trial  index  was  found 
to  be  unsatisfactory  and  in  some  it  was  quite  misleading.  It  was 
found  that  if  the  time  records  of  the  first  trial  and  of  the  shortest 
trial  were  averaged,  an  index  was  obtained  which  usually  agreed 
with  the  conclusions  from  mental  examination  of  the  child.  Ob- 
viously, therefore,  the  first  trial  was  of  such  importance  that  it 
could  not  be  neglected.  It  was  then  decided  to  adopt  tentatively 
the  average  of  three  trials  as  a  standard.  Applied  to  the  records 
of  the  cases  that  had  been  examined  and  to  several  additional 
ones,  it  proved  to  be  the  most  satisfactory  of  anything  that  had 
been  tried.  Without  doubt,  the  average  of  three  trials  is  a  more 
reliable  index  to  the  mentality  of  a  child  than  is  any  other  single 


34  REUEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 

numerical  index,  but  even  this  is  too  mechanical  and  in  many- 
cases  is  misleading. 

While  this  application  of  the  average  of  three  trials  standard 
to  individual  cases  was  being  made,  another  method  suggested 
itself.  It  was  tried  on  a  number  of  cases  and  the  preceding  data 
were  gone  over  from  the  new  point  of  view  so  far  as  possible. 
It  proved  satisfactory  and  was  welcomed  because  it  included  im- 
portant features  of  the  test  which  in  the  effort  to  reduce  the  rec- 
ords to  the  form  of  an  index  of  one  number,  had  been  reluctantly 
excluded.  The  method  is  as  follows.  The  child  is  introduced 
to  the  test  with  practically  no  instruction  concerning  it,  merely 
the  remark,  "Let  us  see  how  quickly  you  can  put  the  blocks  into 
place".  His  first  reactions  are  studied  and  full  note  is  taken  of 
his  behavior  and  of  his  efforts  until  he  succeeds  in  getting  the 
blocks  into  place,  or  shows  that  he  cannot  do  it.  After  this  first 
trial,  any  instruction  necessary  is  given  to  make  him  understand 
where  the  blocks  belong  and  that  he  is  to  replace  them  as  quickly 
as  possible.  Then  the  second  and  the  third  trials  are  given,  start- 
ing him  each  time  from  the  signals,  "Ready — Go",  urging  him 
and  giving  him  every  chance  to  make  the  best  possible  records. 
The  shortest  of  the  two  time  records  is  taken  as  his  time  index. 
This  with  the  notes  taken  on  the  first  trial  and  the  records  of  the 
handling  of  the  blocks  as  taken  by  an  assistant,  constitutes  the 
standard  record.  This  method  allows  the  use  of  Witmer's  idea 
of  carefully  studying  the  first  trial  and  at  the  same  time  it  per- 
mits the  use  of  the  shortest  trial  time  index  which  statistical 
checks  had  shown  to  be  the  most  satisfactory.  Most  normal  chil- 
dren proceed  to  place  the  blocks  properly  without  instruction, 
and  so  make  a  fairly  good  time  record  on  the  first  trial.  An  oc- 
casional child  will  fail  to  set  the  blocks  entirely  down  into  place 
or  will  even  fail  to  lay  them  upon  their  proper  recesses.  These 
can  easily  be  set  right  before  the  second  trial.  Of  defective  chil- 
dren, some  require  considerable  help  and  several  startings  before 
they  understand  what  is  to  be  done.  All  of  this  is  to  be  reported 
in  the  first  trial  notes.  It  was  shown  in  table  I  that  fourth  and 
fifth  trials  usually  differ  little  from  the  third  trial,  so  even  if  con- 


TIME  AND  ERROR  FEATURES  35 

siderable  practice  is  allowed  in  this  so-called  first  trial,  it  will 
make  little  difference. 

Correlation  of  Time  Records  With  Age 
This  rambling  search  for  a  method  of  treating  the  data,  and 
the  consequent  adoption  of  a  new  method  of  conducting  the  test 
came  of  course,  after  the  data  from  the  500  selected  children  has 
been  taken.  All  of  the  tests  had  been  given  in  exactly  the  same 
way  and  under  the  strict  requirements  laid  down  at  the  beginning. 
While  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  data  were  not  taken  with  an 
uninstructed  first  trial,  as  in  the  method  finally  adopted,  it  makes 
absolutely  no  difference  in  the  following  results  and  conclusions 
which  are  limited  to  variability  of  time  records  with  age  and 
sex.  The  averages  may  be  slightly  lower  than  they  would  have 
been  by  the  new  method,  but  excepting  the  coefficient  of  corre- 
lation, every  result  is  shown  clearly  by  the  curve  for  each 
of  the  four  standards  that  have  been  considered.  The  conclusions 
are  drawn  from  the  direction  of  the  curves  and  not  from  their 
heights,  so  they  apply  to  the  new  method  whose  curve  (  See  chart 
IV,  page  49)  differs  from  that  of  the  shortest  of  three  trials  much 
less  than  those  of  the  other  three  standards  do.  With  an  unin- 
structed first  trial  the  errors  might  not  have  been  exactly  the 
same,  but  for  the  purposes  for  which  the  records  are  here  used 
the  difference  is  negligible. 

The  general  direction  of  the  curves  in  chart  I  shows  a  negative 
correlation  between  age  and  the  time  required  for  placing  the 
blocks.  The  coefficient  of  correlation  for  the  shortest  of  three 
trials  standard  calculated  by  Pearson's  products-moments  method 
is  0.384.  Considering  the  bold  curve  taken  by  the  line  of  aver- 
ages, this  is  not  a  low  correlation.  If  the  records  for  the  five 
year  old  group  are  not  included  the  coefficient  is  0.465. 

Age  Variations 

In  studying  the  age  variations  it  is  advantageous  to  consider 

simultaneously  charts  I,  II,  and  III.     The  first  two  have  been 

mentioned.    Chart  III  shows  the  average  numbers  of  errors  made 

by  children  of  each  age.    According  to  charts  I  and  II  many  five 


36 


REUEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 


G       7       i       f      10      II      II      13      If 
Aft  in  Years 

Chart  III. — Average  number  of  errors  in  three  trials. 

year  old  children  require  a  long  time  for  placing  the  blocks,  both 
the  average  time  and  the  variability  being  very  high  as  compared 
with  the  other  age  groups,  but  chart  III  shows  that  in  the  num- 
ber of  errors  the  five  year  old  group  is  comparatively  not  so  high. 
These  facts  are  easily  understood  by  anyone  who  has  watched 
five  year  olds  working  at  the  test.  They  move  slowly  in  handling 
the  blocks  and  cannot  be  made  to  hurry,  working  so  deliberately 
that  were  their  form  perception  as  keen  as  is  that  of  older  chil- 
dren, they  would  make  no  errors.  The  number  of  errors  made  is 
therefore  relatively  low  as  compared  with  the  curve  of  the  time 


TIME  AND  ERROR  FEATURES  37 

records.  A  few  of  them  hurry,  this  fact  partly  accounting  for 
the  wide  range  of  the  time  records.  The  records  are  evenly  dis- 
tributed from  these  shorter  ones  to  the  extremely  long  ones, 
showing  no  mode  or  modes.  Fatigue  and  a  waning  of  interest 
are  noticeable  in  some  five  year  olds,  but  probably  in  no  other 
age.  A  few  six  year  olds  work  slowly  and  so  avoid  making  so 
many  errors.  Except  for  these  few  children,  six  year  olds  are 
much  more  like  seven  year  olds  than  they  are  like  five  year  olds  in 
this  test.  Considerable  emphasis  is  sometimes  laid  on  the  effects 
of  second  dentition  on  seven  year  old  children.3  Some  of  the 
curves  in  these  charts  are  a  bit  irregular  at  this  age  but  on  the 
whole  the  seven  year  olds  seem  to  hold  their  own  with  other 
groups.  Nine  year  olds  fail  to  do  this,  their  curves  showing  de- 
cided irregularities.  There  is  no  explanation  at  hand  for  these 
erratic  tendencies,  but  it  is  a  common  observation  by  principals 
and  teachers  that  nine  year  olds  are  the  most  puzzling  children 
they  have  to  deal  with  at  school.  Gilbert's  curves  show  irregu- 
larities at  this  age.4  Goddard5  and  Wallin6  have  found  in  sep- 
arate investigations  that  the  Binet  tests  for  nine  year  olds  are 
more  uncertain  than  for  any  other  age. 

It  seems  that  in  form  perception  and  motor  ability,  as  they  are 
required  in  this  test,  there  is  practically  no  gain  after  a  point 
somewhere  about  the  age  of  twelve.  The  better  records  made 
above  that  age  are  due  to  planning  and  to  more  determined  effort. 
In  these  charts  we  find  that  at  ages  thirteen  and  fourteen  the 
blocks  were  placed  more  quickly  than  at  twelve,  the  standard  de- 
viations were  lower,  but  the  number  of  errors  was  greater.  To 
those  who  have  observed  the  testing  of  these  older  children  it  is 
evident  that  hurrying  is  the  cause  of  the  errors.  In  order  to 
place  the  blocks  in  less  than  twelve  or  fourteen  seconds,  the  child 
has  to  handle  them  so  rapidly  that  there  is  not  time  enough  to 

*  Chamberlain,  The  Child,  p.  70  and  ff.    Gilbert,  Yale  Psychological  Labora- 
tory Studies,  II,  93,  and  preceding  tables  and  charts. 

*  Ibid. 

*  Reported  in  public  addresses. 

*  Reported  before  American  Psychological  Association,  Dec,   1911. 


38  REUEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 

perceive  the  block's  form  and  then  to  compare  its  image  accurately 
with  the  recess  forms.  Eye  movement,  mental  processes,  and 
hand  movements  must  go  on  simultaneously  and  very  rapidly,  and 
it  is  necessary  to  take  a  chance  that  the  first  impression  of  the 
shape  of  a  form  is  correct.  So  these  errors  are  not  caused  by 
inability  to  perceive  form,  but  by  a  blurred  and  incomplete  per- 
ception due  to  the  rapidity  of  the  work.  Yet  this  gives  the  same 
result  as  inability  to  perceive  form,  for  these  older  boys  and  girls 
confuse  most  often  the  same  forms  that  the  slow  working  young 
children  do.  Table  XIV  shows  that  for  all  ages  the  0-4  error  is 
by  far  the  most  frequent;  for  both  five  year  olds  and  fourteen 
year  olds  about  12%  of  the  errors  being  of  this  one  kind. 

The  practical  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  these  studies  of  the 
age  variations  is  that  the  time  required  for  placing  the  blocks 
varies  with  age  of  children :  that  excepting  five  year  olds,  averages 
or  modes  of  records  for  each  age  should  be  quite  reliable  as  stand- 
ards with  which  to  compare  individual  records. 

Sex  Differences 

Sex  differences  are  of  no  importance  in  the  form  board  test. 
The  average  of  time  records  for  boys  are  slightly  below  that  for 
girls,  the  two  being  17.8  and  18.2  respectively.  Boys,  especially 
the  older  ones,  enter  into  a  "Ready — Go"  test  more  energetically 
than  do  girls,  but  the  extra  errors  that  they  make  because  of  hm> 
rying  partially  sets  them  back.  So  their  average  gain  in  time, 
as  shown  above,  is  only  0.4  seconds.  This  gain  is  not  evenly 
distributed  by  ages.  The  fact  that  at  ages  eleven  and  twelve, 
girls  make  the  better  records  and  at  thirteen  and  fourteen  the 
boys  excel  is  probably  due  to  changes  connected  with  puberty.7 
However  that  may  be,  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  effect  of 
the  greater  hurrying  so  noticeable  in  older  boys.  It  is  clearly 
shown  in  the  shortness  of  their  time  records  at  ages  thirteen  and 
fourteen  in  chart  I,  and  in  the  large  number  of  errors  made  at 
those  ages  as  shown  in  chart  III.     Standard  deviation  charts  for 

1  Bumham.  Ped.  Sem.  I,  181 ;  Bryan.  Am.  Jour,  of  Psych.  V,  173 ;  Gilbert, 
cited  above. 


TIME  AND  ERROR  FEATURES 


39 


the  two  sexes  are  not  given  because  no  sex  differences  are  ap- 
parent in  them. 

Kinds  of  Errors 

The  number  of  times  that  each  kind  of  error  was  made  is 
shown   in  table   XIII   which  gives   for  the   500  selected   chil- 


Recesses 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

0 

Total 

I 

1 

4i 

22 

1 

1 

32 

4 

102 

2 

7 

4 

18 

9 

4 

7 

5 

4 

32 

90 

3 

S 

2 

2 

5 

7 

3 

40 

15 

79 

S3   4 

17 

2 

28 

3 

8 

44 

102 

X   5 

16 

3 

24 

2 

b 

24 

4 

79 

•2   6 
W   7 

4 

2 

2 

7 

5 

38 

5i 

ib 

125 

10 

10 

14 

11 

29 

30 

40 

40 

190 

8 

76 

5 

29 

65 

9 

12 

1 

7 

204 

9 

5 

34 

2 

4 

2 

2 

9 

58 

0 

12 

30 

3 

255 

37 

1 

15 

32 

b 

39i 

Total 

142 

63 

57 

389 

197 

91 

91 

203 

5i 

171 

1491 

Table  XIII. — Distribution  of  the  kinds  of  errors  made  by  the  500  selected 
children.  (For  further  explanation,  see  corresponding  table  for  backward 
class  children,  page  20.) 

dren  data  corresponding  to  that  in  table  VI  (page  20)  for  the 
backward  class  children.  The  most  frequent  error  was  that  of 
attempting  to  put  block  o  into  recess  4.  This  error  occurred  255 
times.  Block  o  was  misplaced  more  frequently  than  any  other, 
altogether  391  times  out  of  the  possible  1500.  This  is  due  partly 
to  its  form  and  to  the  diagonal  position  of  its  recess,  and  partly 
to  the  fact  that  the  recess  is  often  hidden  by  the  right  arm  of  the 
child.  The  only  forms  not  once  confused  with  each  other  were  3 
and  1,  9  and  1,  and  9  and  5.  Block  9  was  the  most  often  placed 
correctly,  its  record  being  only  58  misplacings  out  of  the  possible 
1500.  From  these  results  it  is  not  worth  while  to  attempt  to  draw 
conclusions  as  to  the  relative  complexity  of  the  forms,  their  re- 
semblances, and  the  effects  of  the  different  positions  of  the  re- 
cesses. These  matters  if  worth  investigating,  would  demand  an 
elaborate  study  based  on  facts  of  form  perception  and  visual 
illusions  which  have  not  yet  been  worked  out. 

One  important  conclusion  is  to  be  drawn  from  the  data  as 


40 


REVEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 


arranged  in  table  XIV,  analogous  to  table  VII  (page  21).  Here 
the  twelve  most  frequent  errors  as  shown  in  table  XIII,  are  ar- 
ranged according  to  ages  of  children.  In  the  upper  horizontal  line 
are  the  frequencies  of  each  of  these  twelve  errors  made  by  five 
year  olds   and   in   the   other  horizontal   lines  they   are   shown 


Kinds  of 

errors 

0-4 

8-1 

8-5 

6-8 

7-8 

4-o 

1-4 

3-9 

7-o 

6-7 

o-5 

9-3 

5 

12 

3 

6 

2 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

3 

2 

3 

6 

10 

3 

3 

2 

1 

4 

2 

5 

3 

4 

2 

4 

7 

20 

2 

5 

2 

4 

4 

2 

1 

1 

1 

4 

8 

21 

6 

5 

5 

5 

I 

2 

2 

5 

2 

1 

&   9 

17 

5 

2 

4 

3 

3 

2 

2 

3 

1 

3 

2 

if  10 
<     11 

14 

7 

4 

6 

4 

2 

I 

1 

2 

2 

3 

1 

16 

11 

4 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

3 

1 

3 

12 

21 

5 

9 

2 

5 

3 

2 

2 

5 

2 

1 

13 

15 

4 

1 

3 

4 

1 

5 

6 

1 

1 

2 

1 

14 

13 

4 

3 

2 

1 

2 

3 

5 

3 

2 

2 

1 

Average 

16 

5 

4 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

Table  XIV. — The  twelve  most  frequent  kinds  of  errors  of  the  500  selected 
children  arranged  according  to  ages.     (Compare  with  table  VII,  page  21.) 

for  children  of  other  ages.  The  most  important  fact  revealed  is 
that  certain  kinds  of  errors  are  favored  by  children  of  all  ages. 
The  occurrence  of  the  0-4  error  varies  little  with  age  and  the 
others  are  evenly  distributed.  As  has  already  been  stated  the 
errors  by  older  children  are  due  chiefly  to  hurrying.  They  can 
discriminate  these  forms  with  certainty  when  not  hurried,  but  if 
they  get  only  a  glimpse  of  the  block  form  and  have  little  time 
for  imaging  it  and  comparing  it  with  the  recess  forms,  they  make 
the  same  errors  as  the  younger  children.  The  blurred  perception 
of  the  older  children  and  the  faulty  perception  of  the  younger 
ones  give  the  same  results. 

It  has  been  stated  by  some  who  use  the  form  board  test  that 
if  a  child  persists  in  making  the  same  kind  of  errors  he  is  lacking 
in  learning  ability.  This  seems  plausible  on  the  assumption  that 
he  ought  to  recognize  the  situation  and  not  repeat  the  same  errors. 
But  it  is  not  borne  out  by  results.  On  the  contrary  it  is  shown 
that  bright  children  as  well  as  dull  ones  often  persist  in  the  same 


TIME  AND  ERROR  FEATURES  41 

kind  of  errors  and  that  most  of 
the  extremely  backward  show  no 
tendency  to  do  so.  The  follow- 
ing record  of  a  bright  nine  year 
old  boy  is  a  conspicuous  case  of 
repeating  particular  errors.  In 
this  case  the  two  errors  2-8  and 
4-0  were  each  repeated  and  they 
might  have  appeared  in  all  three 

trials  had  not  the  order  in  which      "  ~~  """" 

20  sec.  23  sec.  19  sec. 

the  blocks  were  piled  made  it  im- 
possible.   The  number  of  normal  children  out  of  the  50  of  each 
age  who  repeated  one  or  more  errors  was  as  follows : 


FIRST 

SECOND 

THIRD 

TRIAL 

TRIAL 

TRIAL 

3 

5 

7 

I 

282 

5 

5 

7 

8 

8 

1 

2 

6 

404 

404 

2802 

0 

6 

9 

9 

3 

0 

3 

1 

7 

8 

0 

4 

6 

9 

Age 

5      6 

7 

8      9    10    11     12 

13    14 

Number  who  repeated   errors 

14    14 

12 

8     14      7      9    11 

4      7 

There  is  a  type  of  defectives  who  persists  to  an  extreme  degree 
in  repeating  errors  or  in  trying  to  put  every  block  picked  up  into 
a  certain  recess.  The  records  of  the  605  backward  class  children 
show  a  dozen  such  individuals,  but  the  great  mass  of  the  back- 
ward class  children  repeated  errors  less  often  than  did  the  normal 
children.8 

Summary 

This  study  of  the  500  selected  children  may  be  summarized  as 
follows : 

Children  vary  so  widely  in  their  development  and  advancement 
that  in  order  to  reveal  their  changes  in  any  capacity  from  year 
to  year,  a  large  mass  of  data  would  be  necessary.  The  collecting 
of  this  is  impracticable  for  a  test  requiring  the  time  that  the  form 
board  does.  The  difficulty  was  partly  handled  by  collecting  a 
reasonably  large  amount  of  data  from  carefully  selected  homo- 
geneous groups. 

•No  exact  comparison  is  possible.  161  of  the  605,  as  compared  with  99 
of  the  selected  500  normal  children  repeated  errors,  but  since  their  total  num- 
ber of  errors  of  all  kinds  was  more  than  twice  the  number  made  by  the 
normal  children  the  chances  for  repeating  were  far  more  than  enough  to 
make  up  for  the  larger  number  who  did  repeat.  Also  there  were  105  more 
individuals  in  the  group. 


42  REUEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 

Four  possible  indices  for  representing  a  child's  form  board 
ability  were  considered;  the  time  records  for  the  first  trial,  for 
the  third  trial,  for  the  shortest  of  three  trials,  and  for  the  aver- 
age of  three  trials.  The  first  trial  index  was  eliminated  because 
of  its  wide  and  irregular  variability.  The  third  trial  index 
proved  to  be  unreliable  because  bright  children  often  fall  back 
badly  on  the  third  trial  through  over-hurrying,  change  of  method 
of  handling  the  blocks,  or  bad  luck  in  fitting  them  into  the  re- 
cesses. The  shortest  of  three  trials  index  has  the  lowest  varia- 
bility of  the  four  and  is  almost  as  regular  by  ages  as  any  other, 
so  from  the  statistical  point  of  view  it  is  the  most  reliable. 
When  applied  to  individual  children  it  failed  in  many  cases  to 
agree  with  the  results  from  careful  mental  examinations.  The 
average  of  three  trials  index  was  next  tried.  It  proved  more 
satisfactory  in  its  application  to  individual  cases,  evidently  be- 
cause it  gives  weight  to  the  first  trial,  a  feature  not  embraced 
by  the  variability  criterion.  The  outcome  was  a  modified  method 
of  giving  the  test  and  of  treating  the  data.  Since  this  new 
method  involved  a  change  in  the  testing  procedure  it  could  not  be 
applied  in  every  way  to  the  data  from  the  500  selected  children. 
Fortunately  the  important  results  from  which  the  data  had  been 
taken  are  the  same,  no  matter  what  standard  index  is  used.  The 
following  conclusions  therefore  apply  to  the  new  method  and  to 
all  others  in  which  the  time  element  is  made  the  main  feature. 

1.  There  is  a  negative  correlation  between  age  and  the  time 
required  for  placing  the  blocks. 

2.  Five  year  olds  show  an  extremely  wide  individual  varia- 
bility and  on  the  average  their  time  records  are  comparatively 
long.  Because  nearly  all  work  so  slowly,  their  number  of  errors 
is  lower  than  would  be  expected,  judging  from  the  number  made 
by  other  age  groups.  A  few  six  year  olds  work  slowly  like  five 
year  olds,  but  the  differences  between  ages  five  and  six  are  much 
greater  than  the  differences  between  ages  six  and  seven.  There 
are  unexplained  irregularities  in  the  records  of  nine  year  olds. 
After  the  age  of  twelve  there  is  practically  no  gain  in  form 
board  ability  except  that  due  to  better  planning  and  to  greater 


TIME  AND  ERROR  FEATURES  43 

effort.  As  a  result  thirteen  year  olds  and  fourteen  year  olds 
make  shorter  time  records  but  the  extra  hurrying  causes  them 
to  make  more  errors  than  the  twelve  year  olds. 

3.  Excepting  that  for  five  year  olds,  averages  of  time  records 
for  each  age  should  be  quite  reliable  as  standards  with  which  to 
compare  individuals. 

4.  Sex  differences  in  the  form  board  test  are  negligible. 

5.  The  0-4  error  is  much  the  most  frequent  but  there  are 
others  that  are  favored.  Block  o  is  the  most  often  misplaced  and 
block  9  the  least  often.  These  facts  are  equally  true  for  children 
of  all  ages. 

6.  A  tendency  to  repeat  certain  kinds  of  errors  is  not  indicative 
of  weak  mentality  unless  persisted  in  to  an  extreme  degree. 


V 
A  STANDARDIZATION  OF  THE  FORM  BOARD  TEST 

There  is  a  general  tendency  at  present  to  over  emphasize  men- 
tal tests.  Many  of  the  uninitiated  expect  tests  of  mentality  to 
be  as  decisive  and  as  reliable  as  the  acid  test,  and  some  experi- 
enced examiners  are  quite  dependent  on  them.  They  fail  to 
realize  fully  that  mind  is  a  function,  and  that  it  is  the  re- 
sultant of  a  complex  of  factors  which  no  one  test  can  even 
approximately  measuie.  Co-ordinated  systems  of  tests  such  as 
the  Binet-Simon  cover  a  number  of  the  factors,  but  no  team  of 
tests  has  as  yet  been  offered  which  comes  near  covering  all.  The 
investigator  believes  that  for  a  single  test  the  form  board  is  un- 
excelled; that  an  examiner  who  is  cognizant  of  the  limitations 
of  tests  and  who  knows  how  to  articulate  their  results  with  his 
judgment  based  on  general  observation  of  the  child,  will  find  in 
this  test  a  most  valuable  and  reliable  aid.  It  is  from  this  view- 
point that  the  following  standardization  is  given.  In  the  preced- 
ing studies  conclusions  were  reached  on  most  of  the  important 
features  of  the  form  board  test  and  a  satisfactory  method  of 
using  it  and  of  interpreting  its  results  were  worked  out.  The 
various  features  of  this  method  have  been  described  only  in  con- 
nection with  the  studies  through  which  they  were  evolved, 
so  at  the  beginning  the  following  complete  statement  is  necessary. 

The  Method  of  Applying  the  Form  Board  Test 

The  form  board  lies  horizontally  on  a  table,  its  lower  edge 
even  with  the  edge  of  the  table  next  to  which  the  child  stands. 
The  table  must  be  low  enough  to  allow  him  to  lean  well  over  the 
board  and  to  look  down  upon  its  center.  The  blocks  are  placed 
in  three  piles  on  the  table  next  to  the  upper  edge  of  the  board, 
no  block  in  the  pile  nearest  its  recess,  the  lozenge  and  the 
elongated  hexagon  not  in  the  same  layer,  and  the  star  in  the  lower 
layer.     This  is  the  arrangement  at  the  beginning  of  each  of 


STANDARDIZATION  OF  THE  FORM  BOARD  TEST  45 

three  trials.  The  child  is  introduced  to  the  test  with  no  instruc- 
tion concerning  it  except,  "Let  us  see  how  quickly  you  can  put  the 
blocks  into  place."  His  first  reactions  and  his  behavior  until  he 
succeeds  in  getting  the  blocks  into  place  or  fails  are  carefully 
studied.  After  this  first  trial  he  is  given  any  instruction  neces- 
sary to  make  him  understand  where  the  blocks  belong  and  that 
he  is  to  replace  them  as  quickly  as  possible.  Then  he  is  given  a 
second  and  a  third  trial,  in  which  he  is  encouraged  and  urged  in 
every  way  to  make  the  best  record  of  which  he  is  capable.  These 
last  two  trials  are  timed  with  a  stop  watch  and  the  shortest  of 
the  two  records  is  taken  as  the  child's  form  board  index.  In 
addition  the  examiner  records  an  estimate  of  the  child's  co-ordi- 
nation and  poise;1  of  whether  he  plans  ahead;  of  whether  he 
successfully  uses  both  hands  at  the  same  time;  and  after  the 
test  is  completed  he  dictates  to  his  assistant  his  observations  of 
individual  features.  During  the  testing  the  assistant  has  taken 
a  complete  record  of  the  order  in  which  the  blocks  were  handled. 2 
The  record  of  the  test  then  consists  of  four  parts; — (i)  An 
account  of  the  first  trial.  (2)  The  shorter  of  the  two  time  records. 
(3)  A  record  of  co-ordination,  poise,  planning  ahead,  use  of  the 
hands,  and  general  observations.  (4)  A  record  of  the  handling  of 
the  blocks.  This  is  not  so  cumbersome  as  it  looks.  All  of  it  is  taken 
while  the  child  is  at  work,  except  part  of  the  account  of  the  first 
trial  and  the  general  notes,  and  these  unless  the  case  is  an  unusual 
one  are  stated  in  a  few  words. 

The  Standardization 

This  work  was  undertaken  through  the  testing  of  another 
group  of  public  school  children.  The  results  from  the  500  se- 
lected children  reported  in  the  previous  section  could  not  be  used 
because  in  those  tests  careful  instruction  was  given  before  the 
first  trial  instead  of  before  the  second  trial  as  in  the  method 
finally  adopted.  Also,  in  order  to  make  the  group  as  nearly 
homogeneous  as  possible,  they  had  been  selected  according  to 

1  For  meaning  of  these  qualities  as  used  here  see  p.  19. 

2  For  method  see  p.  14. 


46  REUEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 

requirements  which  made  them  above  the  average  of  ordinary- 
children.  Therefore  new  data  had  to  be  collected.  It  was  pro- 
posed to  test  250  of  each  of  the  ten  ages,  2500  in  all,  but  this  was 
found  to  be  too  large  an  undertaking.  Inasmuch  as  the  five, 
thirteen,  and  fourteen  year  standards  would  be  of  less  value  than 
the  others,3  it  was  decided  to  include  fewer  of  these  ages  and 
to  spend  the  available  time  on  the  ages  for  which  the  standard- 
ization would  be  of  the  most  value.  In  all  1537  children  were 
tested.  Except  that  no  especially  backward  or  peculiar  children 
were  included  there  was  no  selecting.  The  results  arranged  ac- 
cording to  the  four  parts  of  the  records  are  as  follows : 

( 1 )  No  attempt  was  made  to  standardize  the  features  that  are 
to  be  observed  in  the  first  of  the  three  trials.  The  examiner  is 
not  limited  as  to  what  he  shall  look  for  in  this  part  of  the  test. 
He  must  have  his  whole  stock  of  psychological  knowledge  open 
for  apperceiving  whatever  is  brought  out,  so  the  features  that 
strike  him  as  important  may  vary  widely  in  different  children. 

(2)  The  age  distribution  of  the  time  records  is  shown  in 
table  XV.  Corresponding  closely  to  this  is  table  X,  page  29. 
The  latter  displays  a  much  more  restricted  distribution  because 
the  500  children  were  selected  with  the  purpose  of  securing 
homogeneity,  but  the  age  variability  of  the  time  records  is  much 
the  same  in  the  two  tables.  Averages  of  the  time  records  for 
each  age,  and  their  limiting  zones  are  given  in  table  XVI4  and 

8  See  pages  8,  36,  and  38  for  reasons. 

*In  the  following  table  these  time  averages  are  compared  with  those  which 
Goddard  obtained  by  a  somewhat  different  method  from  250  children. 
(Training  School,  IX,  51.) 

AGE  GODDARD'S  AVERAGES   FROM    THE 

AVERAGES  PRESENT   INVESTIGATION 

5  29.5  37-6 

6  27.5  26.5 

7  24.5  23.3 

8  21.8  20.6 

9  19.3  18.6 

10  18.2  16.7 

11  176  149 

12  159  13-8 


75 

I 

58 

I 

57 

56 

3 

55 

1 

54 

53 

1 

52 

5i 

50 

2 

49 

1 

48 

1 

47 

1 

46 

1 

45 

2 

44 

2 

43 

4 

42 

5 

41 

2 

2 

40 

2 

1 

39 

3 

1 

CO 

38 

6 

1 

1 

a 

o 

37 

2 

3 

CD 

36 

1 

1 

1 

(/> 

35 

6 

3 

c 

34 

5 

6 

1 

1 

1) 

33 

3 

3 

3 

S 

32 

3 

9 

2 

H 

3i 

11 

2 

1 

3 

30 

2 

10 

4 

3 

1 

29 

4 

5 

6 

2 

3 

28 

3 

11 

5 

5 

2 

27 

1 

9 

13 

2 

2 

1 

26 

5 

11 

16 

6 

4 

2 

• 

25 

1 

14 

7 

6 

4 

24 

2 

21 

17 

4 

3 

6 

1 

23 

2 

6 

13 

12 

6 

4 

1 

22 

1 

7 

18 

18 

10 

2 

2 

21 

12 

24 

28 

8 

9 

1 

1 

20 

11 

13 

39 

19 

11 

2 

2 

19 

6 

8 

19 

19 

22 

4 

1 

18 

6 

10 

13 

3i 

16 

7 

2 

17 

5 

20 

29 

28 

17 

9 

2 

I 

16 

5 

16 

26 

28 

26 

8 

5 

2 

15 

1 

8 

30 

38 

39 

22 

6 

4 

14 

2 

9 

24 

29 

3i 

11 

6 

13 

4 

17 

19 

20 

11 

9 

12 

13 

17 

21 

23 

16 

11 

4 

17 

15 

16 

10 

2 

6 

3 

18 

9 

2 

4 

8 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

Arc 

Table  XV. — Distribution  of  the  time  records  of  the  1537  normal  children. 


REUEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 


Number   of 

Average 

Zone 

Standard 

Ages 

cases 

time 

limits 

deviation 

5 

8o 

37-6 

22-75 

9.66 

6 

170 

26.5 

18-44 

5-23 

7 

173 

23-3 

15-38 

4.14 

8 

206 

20.5 

14-32 

3-59 

9 

214 

18.7 

13-34 

3-88 

10 

221 

16.7 

12-27 

3.06 

ii 

172 

14.9 

9-24 

2.32 

12 

141 

13-8 

10-22 

2.29 

13 

80 

12.6 

9-17 

1.85 

14 

80 

1 1.6 

9-17 

1.85 

Table  XVI. — Time  records  of  the  1537  normal  children. 


in  chart  IV.  In  the  chart  the  heavy  line  represents  averages  of 
time  records  and  the  shaded  portion  includes  the  1537  records. 
For  example  the  average  time  required  for  eight  year  olds  to 
place  the  blocks  is  shown  to  be  20.6  seconds,  while  the  shortest 
and  the  longest  records  for  that  age  are  14  seconds  and  32  sec- 
onds respectively.  Table  XV  shows  that  in  most  cases  the  rec- 
ords are  well  enough  distributed  over  the  zones  to  make  the  zone 
widths  a  rough  expression  of  the  variability  at  each  age.  In 
chart  IV  we  have  a  complete  standardization  of  the  time  fea- 
tures of  the  form  board  test.  By  referring  to  it  one  can  quickly 
interpret  the  time  record  of  a  child.  Unless  his  record  falls  out- 
side the  zone  limits  for  his  age  he  is  to  be  considered  normal  in 
this  important  feature  of  the  test,  but  of  course  the  nearer  it 
comes  to  the  line  of  averages  the  better.  It  would  be  presuming 
too  much  to  claim  that  these  zones  definitely  divide  the  normal 
from  the  sub-normal,  but  in  order  that  the  line  of  averages  may 
be  of  the  most  value  the  zone  width  at  the  different  ages  must  be 
considered  with  it.  For  instance  it  is  shown  that  a  seven  year 
old  child's  record  may  be  considerably  farther  above  the  line  of 
averages  than  could  be  allowed  in  a  ten  year  old's  record  without 
suspecting  sub-normality.  Attempts  to  produce  a  better  chart 
than  this  by  displaying  the  standard  deviations  instead  of  the 
distribution  limits  have  failed.  It  is  possible  in  that  way  to  give 
more  regular  zone  boundaries  than  are  seen  in  this  chart,  but 
there  is  no  basis  for  reducing  them  to  a  scale  that  would  satis- 


STANDARDIZATION  OF  THE  FORM  BOARD  TEST 


49 


factorily  represent  standard  deviations  in  connection  with  the 
line  of  averages.     In  fact  the  chart  as  given  comes  remarkably 


dge  /h  /ears. 

Chart  IV.— THE  FORM  BOARD  TIME  CHART.  The  heavy  middle 
line  shows  the  average  time  record  for  each  age,  and  the  shaded  zone  is 
limited  by  the  shortest  and  the  longest  records  for  each  age. 

near  to  presenting  the  standard  deviations.     It  happens  that  by 
multiplying  the  standard  deviations  by  5  they  can  be  compared 


50  REUEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 

with  the  zone  widths.    This  is  shown  in  the  accompanying  table : 

Age  5      6      7      8      9    io    II     12    13    14 

Width    of   time   zone       53    26    23    18    19    15     13     12      8      8 
5  S.  D.  49    26    24    19    18    16    12    12    10    10 

This  approximation  of  an  index  of  variability  by  the  zone  widths 
adds  greatly  to  their  reliability.  The  two  or  three  serious  irregu- 
larities in  the  zone  boundaries  are  objectionable,  but  they  have 
a  value  in  constantly  reminding  the  user  of  the  chart  that  records 
falling  near  the  zone  limits  are  of  uncertain  interpretation. 

(3)  To  establish  standards  on  poise  and  co-ordination  it  would 
be  necessary  to  grade  a  large  number  of  children  who  are  de- 
fective in  these  features.  Nothing  in  that  direction  was  at- 
tempted in  this  study.  None  of  these  1537  normal  children  were 
seriously  lacking  in  either.  Of  the  605  backward  class  children, 
every  individual  who  was  given  a  low  grading  in  one  of  these 
features  proved  to  have  other  defects  and  to  be  mentally  sub- 
normal. Hence  the  conclusion  is  to  be  drawn  that  serious  lack 
in  co-ordination  or  poise  indicates  mental  deficiency. 

Data  were  taken  as  to-how  many  of  the  1537  children  planned 
ahead.    The  results  stated  in  per  cent,  of  each  age  group  follow : 


Age 

S 

6 

7 

8 

9     10     11     12     13     14 

Per  cent,  planning  ahead 

0 

0 

0 

4 

9     10     16    26    50    54 

Obviously  a  child  should  be  given  considerable  credit  for  planning 

ahead  since  very  few  younger  normal  children  and  only  8  per  cent 

of  the  backward  children  do  so,5  while  about  half  of  the  older 

normal  ones  do. 

A  record  was  also  taken  of  the  number  who  used  the  two  hands 

at  the  same  time  successfully.     The  following  statement  is  in 

per  cent,  of  each  age  group : 

Age  5     6     7     8     9    10    11    12    13    14 

Per  cent,  using  both  hands   o      8     14    38    45    54    64    88  100    98 

Here  again  the  older  children  succeed  best,  but  ability  to  use  both 
hands  at  the  same  time  successfully  is  not  confined  to  children  of 
quite  so  high  advancement  as  is  planning  ahead.     Nearly  all  of 

5  Table  V,  page  17. 


STANDARDIZATION  OF  THE  FORM  BOARD  TEST 


Si 


the  older  children  and  26  per  cent,  of  the  backward  class  children 
succeeded  in  using  both  hands.6 

(4)  The  record  of  the  handling  of  the  blocks  is  taken  in  such 
a  form  as  to  need  no  simplification  or  reduction  to  an  index. 
The  masses  of  digits  display  to  the  best  advantage  the  number 
of  errors  and  the  improvement  and  other  variations  in  the  placing 
of  the  blocks.  No  standards  of  the  number  of  errors  made  by 
normal  children  of  various  ages  could  be  established  because 
normal  children  make  comparatively  few  errors  and  their  average 
number  shows  no  consistent  correlation  with  age.7  Defectives, 
on  the  contrary,  make  numerous  errors,  and  for  purposes  of  com- 
parison the  following  general  statement  drawn  from  table  XVII 


32 

1 

21 

1 

20 

19 

18 

17 

16 

1 

15 

1 

1 

O 
u 

14 

1 

1 

u 
9 

13 

1 

1 

M-l 

12 

1 

1 

1 

O 

II 

3 

1 

IO 

1 

5 

1 

9 

2 

3 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

3 

8 

1 

4 

1 

2 

2 

"Z> 

7 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

1 

6 

1 

4 

6 

2 

4 

1 

2 

2 

I 

2 

5 

5 

2 

2 

7 

2 

3 

2 

5 

4 

14 

2 

5 

2 

7 

5 

1 

4 

5 

3 

9 

9 

10 

7 

6 

8 

5 

4 

8 

11 

2 

6 

6 

3 

10 

10 

11 

12 

16 

9 

7 

1 

3 

12 

14 

7 

6 

8 

15 

11 

11 

8 

0 

3 

1 

1 

8 

6 

7 

13 

16 

13 

11 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Age 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

Table  XVII. — Distribution  of  the  500  selected  children  according  to  the 
number  of  errors  made  in  three  trials.  (These  results  instead  of  those  from 
the  1537  children  are  used  because  their  age  groups  have  equal  numbers  of 
individuals,  50  each.  This  makes  them  more  isuitable  for  a  display  of 
frequencies.) 


'  Table  V,  page  17. 
7  Chart  III,  page  36. 


52  REVEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 

is  of  value.  Some  children  of  all  ages  make  no  errors  and  the 
majority  make  less  than  four  in  the  three  trials  at  the  test.  A 
few  of  each  age  make  as  high  as  ten,  an  occasional  one  younger 
than  ten  years  makes  as  many  as  twenty,  while  a  few  five  year 
olds  make  more  than  twenty. 

It  has  been  worked  out  in  previous  studies8  that  attempts  to 
place  the  lozenge  block  in  the  elongated  hexagon  recess  is  by 
far  the  most  common  error,  and  that  certain  other  kinds  of  er- 
rors, especially  those  involving  the  flattened  oval,  are  made  quite 
frequently.  Extremely  backward  children  find  all  forms  equally 
difficult,  making  as  many  errors  of  one  kind  as  of  another.  So 
a  tendency  to  favor  these  common  errors  is  creditable  to  the 
child,  many  bright  children  repeating  from  one  to  three  errors 
in  the  three  trials,9  but  an  extreme  tendency  to  repeat  an  error, 
especially  attempts  to  fit  every  block  into  some  one  recess,  indi- 
cates quite  low  mentality. 

This  completes  the  standardization  of  the  form  board  test  for 
children  between  five  and  fourteen  years  of  age.  Of  the  four 
parts  of  the  record,  the  time  index  is  the  most  important  because 
it  is  convenient  for  use  in  speaking  of  a  child's  form  board  abil- 
ity and  because  it  usually  includes  what  is  shown  in  the  others. 
By  this  is  meant  that  if  a  child  makes  many  errors  or  lacks  poise 
or  is  lacking  in  any  other  feature,  his  time  record  will  be  accord- 
ingly longer.  The  occasional  cases  in  which  a  time  index  alone 
is  misleading  make  it  necessary  to  record  the  other  features,  and 
since  this  can  be  easily  done  it  is  best  to  make  a  full  record  in 
every  case. 

8  Pages  21  and  40. 

9  Page  41. 


APPENDIX 

CHILDREN  UNDER  FIVE  YEARS  OF  AGE 

A  group  of  thirty-five  four  year  old  children  were  given  the 
form  board  test,  the  regular  method  being  used  except  that  the 
child  was  handed  each  block  and  in  case  he  spent  considerable 
time  trying  to  fit  it  into  a  wrong  recess  he  was  told  to  try 
another.  All  normal  four  year  olds  can  place  the  blocks  if  given 
that  much  help.  The  shortest  time  record  was  20  seconds,  the 
longest  91  seconds,  and  the  average  46  seconds.  Three  of  the 
thirty-five  made  no  errors,  one  made  42,  and  the  average  num- 
ber made  was  11.  Seventeen  made  their  best  record  on  the 
second  trial  and  eighteen  on  their  third.  Because  they  were 
handed  the  blocks  and  were  not  allowed  to  spend  too  much  time 
trying  a  wrong  recess,  the  effects  of  fatigue  are  not  so  notice- 
able in  the  time  records,  but  the  majority  showed  waning  of 
interest  and  fatigue  on  the  last  trial. 

Nine  children  between  three  and  three  and  a  half  years  of  age 
were  tested  in  the  same  way  except  that  they  were  given  but  two 
trials.  Their  shortest  time  record  was  49  seconds,  the  longest 
113  seconds,  and  the  average  69  seconds.  The  number  of  errors 
varied  between  12  and  24,  the  average  being  16.  Six  of  the 
nine  did  better  on  the  second  trial  than  on  the  first. 

Seven  children  between  the  ages  of  two  years  three  months 
and  two  years  six  months,  with  considerable  help  gave  time  rec- 
ords ranging  from  52  seconds  to  148  seconds  and  an  average  of 
92  seconds.  Their  errors  ranged  between  4  and  25  for  the  two 
trials,  with  an  average  of  17.  Four  did  much  better  on  the 
first  trial  than  on  the  second.  All  of  these  children  perceived 
the  relation  of  block  form  to  recess  form  for  at  least  the  circle 
and  the  square.  They  commonly  confused  the  cross  with  the 
star,  the  oval  with  the  semi-circle  and  the  circle,  and  the  triangle, 
the  lozenge,  and  the  elongated  hexagon  with  each  other.  If 
they  happened  to  get  the  lozenge  crosswise  over  its  recess,  they 
usually  would  not  turn  it  without  help.  They  often  searched 
in  the  piles  for  a  block  for  some  particular  recess  or  picked  up 
the  circle  in  preference  to  others.  Some  tired  of  the  test  after 
a  trial  or  two  but  two  cried  because  they  were  not  allowed  to 
continue. 

The  test  was  tried  on  several  children  between  one  and  a  half 


54  REUEL  HULL   SYLVESTER 

and  two  years  of  age.  The  form  board  was  laid  on  the  floor. 
With  much  help  one  child  placed  six  blocks  and  others  placed 
two  or  three.  Some  showed  unmistakeably  that  they  perceived 
the  circle  form  and  certain  of  the  other  more  simple  ones.  The 
majority  piled  the  blocks  one  upon  another  instead  of  attempting 
to  fit  them  into  recesses.  At  the  Philadelphia  Infants'  Home, 
a  form  board  was  left  in  one  of  the  rooms  where  a  dozen  of 
these  little  tots  spent  most  of  the  day,  and  their  nurse  attempted 
for  a  week  to  teach  them  to  put  the  blocks  into  place.  Some 
made  a  little  progress  but  all  continued  to  pile  them  and  not  one 
learned  to  complete  the  test. 

ADULTS 

Adults  place  the  blocks  a  little  more  quickly  than  do  fourteen 
year  olds.  Most  of  their  records  fall  between  9  and  12  seconds. 
An  occasional  8  second  record  is  made,  and  three  individuals  out 
of  more  than  a  hundred  made  records  of  7  seconds  in  one  of 
their  first  three  trials.  Practically  all  adults  plan  ahead.  The 
most  successful  handling  of  the  blocks  is  a  rhythmic  alternating 
of  the  two  hands,  one  hand  fitting  a  block  while  the  other  is 
picking  one  from  the  piles.  When  one  attempts  to  fit  two  blocks 
into  their  recesses  simultaneously  time  is  lost,  probably  because 
of  the  attempt  to  divide  the  attention. 

CHILDREN  OF  LOW  MENTALITY 

There  is  no  kind  of  reaction  to  the  form  board  test  that  is 
strictly  typical  of  any  one  grade  or  class  of  defectives.  This 
is  partly  due  to  the  fact  that  each  of  our  standard  classifications 
has  its  own  basis,  such  as  industrial  capacity,  linguistic  ability 
and  educability.  Accordingly  children  may  rank  quite  differ- 
ently under  different  classification  systems,  and  the  form  board 
test  could  not  be  expected  to  label  individuals  directly  for  their 
place  in  a  mental  scale  unless  such  scale  had  form  board  ability 
as  its  basis.1  For  diagnostic  purposes  it  is  therefore  necessary 
first  to  compare  the  individual's  form  board  reaction  with  the  re- 
action of  normal  children,  and  then  after  he  has  thus  been  ap- 
proximately placed,  to  study  his  reaction  in  comparison  with  that 
of  other  defectives.    Hence  the  importance  of  normal  standards. 

1  Form  board  time  records  do  not  correlate  well  with  Binet  Test  results, 
children  who  are  considerably  retarded  according  to  the  Binet  scale  usually 
being  more  successful  at  the  form  board  test  than  are  normal  children  of 
the  corresponding  Binet  age. 


APPENDIX  55 

All  kinds  of  mental  defectives  who  can  do  anything  with  the 
form  board  were  included  among  the  605  backward  class  chil- 
dren whose  tests  are  reported  in  Section  III  of  this  monograph. 
But  since  that  study  was  made  before  the  standards  for  normal 
children  were  established,  it  is  worth  while  to  supplement  it  with 
the  following  notes  on  tests  of  defectives  made  after  the  work 
on  normal  children  had  been  completed. 

Seventy-six  imbeciles  and  idiots  ranging  in  age  from  nine  to 
seventeen  were  given  the  form  board  test, — some  in  the  Psycho- 
logical Clinic  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  some  in  the 
Pennsylvania  Training  School  for  Feeble  Minded  Children  at 
Elwyn,  and  some  in  small  private  schools.  As  to  the  time  rec- 
ords, the  records  of  errors,  and  the  records  of  other  items  that 
are  included  in  the  standards  given  in  the  last  section  of  this 
monograph,  these  later  observations  of  defectives  seem  wherever 
possible  to  corroborate  the  conclusions  drawn  there.  They  show 
nothing  that  disagrees  with  those  conclusions.  Of  the  seventy- 
six  defectives,  forty-two  succeeded  in  putting  the  blocks  into 
place  three  times,  fourteen  placed  them  once  but  not  three  times, 
and  twenty  failed  to  place  all  of  them  even  once.  Of  those  who 
placed  them  one  or  more  times,  thirty-three  required  more  than 
30  seconds  for  the  shortest  trial.  There  were  several  times  as 
many  errors  as  would  have  been  made  by  normal  children,  and 
there  was  only  an  irregular  tendency  to  favor  the  0-4  error. 
Very  few  attempted  to  use  both  hands  at  the  same  time  and  but 
nine  did  so  successfully.  None  planned  ahead.  A  large  number 
were  lacking  in  poise ;  some  being  confused  by  their  own  efforts 
as  well  as  by  the  urging  and  assistance  offered  by  the  examiner. 
In  some  cases  the  confusion  was  only  temporary,  poise  being  re- 
gained and  the  work  proceeding  successfully  for  a  time,  but  in 
others  even  after  a  promising  beginning,  control  was  lost  and 
the  efforts  ended  in  utter  confusion.  Some  of  these  defectives 
are  at  an  opposite  extreme  from  those  who  lack  poise,  being 
abnormally  inert  and  stolid.  They  work  at  the  form  board  in  a 
listless,  indifferent  manner,  lacking  either  the  inclination  or  the 
ability  to  start  quickly  and  to  work  rapidly.  The  most  of  these 
make  somewhat  better  records  when  urged  strenuously.  A  nor- 
mal child  is  alert  but  at  the  same  time  has  self-control  and  poise. 
There  is  no  testing  device  that  makes  a  stronger  appeal  to  the 
interest  of  children,  both  normal  and  defective,  than  does  the 
form  board  test.  It  is  therefore  a  good  test  of  attention.  Prac- 
tically every  child  gives  it  the  best  attention  of  which  he  is  capa- 
ble.    Twenty-four  of  the  seventy-six  defectives  gave  the  test 


56  REUEL  HULL  SYLVESTER 

undivided  attention  as  long  as  the  examiner  wished  them  to 
work  at  it,  although  some  of  them  worked  slowly  and  made  many 
errors.  Fourteen  gave  good  attention  through  one  trial  but 
wandered  from  the  task  before  told  to  stop.  Thirty-one  showed 
various  degrees  of  flightiness,  some  attending  to  the  test  but  a 
few  seconds  at  a  time,  and  others  almost  completing  a  trial. 
Some  of  these  returned  to  it  of  their  own  accord,  others  had  to 
be  reminded  by  the  examiner.  Three  of  them  refused  to  return 
to  it.  Seven  could  not  be  interested  in  the  test  at  all,  and  made 
no  effort  to  place  blocks.  Fatigue  is  a  factor  in  the  case  of 
many  who  lose  interest. 

The  emotional  reaction  of  defectives  to  the  form  board  test 
is  extremely  interesting.  Affectively,  only  ten  of  these  seventy- 
six  reacted  like  normal  children.  Seventeen  were  apathetic,  the 
test  arousing  little  or  no  interest  in  them.  Thirty-three  found 
great  enjoyment  in  it,  working  enthusiastically,  some  talking 
and  chattering  while  at  work  and  many  of  them  expressing  ex- 
treme joy  when  a  block  or  blocks  were  placed  successfully.  It 
was  probably  the  most  difficult  piece  of  work  that  some  of  them 
had  ever  done,  hence  their  feeling  of  triumph  and  satisfaction  in 
succeeding.  Some  of  the  more  excitable  ones  would  of  course 
react  in  the  same  way  to  any  test  involving  activity.  The  other 
sixteen  gave  various  kinds  of  curious  and  inconsistent  reactions. 
One  large  boy  started  well  but  before  half  of  the  blocks  were 
placed  he  began  to  weep  hysterically  and  ran  away  refusing  even 
to  look  backward.  Several  others  wept  and  wailed,  attracted  to 
the  test  but  forced  to  leave  it  because  of  embarassment  and 
excitement. 

These  notes  give  but  a  glimpse  of  what  can  be  observed  in 
form  board  tests  of  defectives.  For  instance  the  attempt  to 
group  the  seventy-six  cases  on  the  basis  of  attention  might  be 
extended  to  include  an  analysis  of  each  individual's  volitional 
complex.  It  would  cover  not  only  his  power  of  attention,  but  also 
his  initiative,  his  self  control,  and  the  intensity  of  his  effort.  A 
full  report  would  include  the  painting  of  a  clinical  picture  of 
each  case.  How  much  of  this  is  profitable  depends  on  the  indi- 
vidual case  and  on  the  extent  to  which  other  tests  and  means  of 
analysis  are  employed.  These  notes  are  suggestive  of  what 
may  be  worked  out  from  the  form  board  test,  and  they  empha- 
size the  fact  that  normal  standards  must  be  the  basis  upon 
which  each  defective's  reaction  to  the  form  board  test  is  to  be 
interpreted. 


'  ■''■  - 

this  book  is       " — " 

^===========U=========^         made  before 


SYRACUSE.  -  N 

r.  JJ.N.  21,  l3o« 


UXIVKRSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


